PRESIDENT OBAMA OFFERED MIX OF SYMBOLIC, PRACTICAL MEASURES
By Morgan Allison || If you were as lucky as I was, you spent your Tuesday evening reading overly concerned comments from Republican politicians promising that whatever President Barack Obama was about to announce about guns was in fact “tyranny,” and listening to vexed conservatives spin the newest Obama conspiracy theories.
Weeks after President Obama claimed the American public would have to decide the fate of gun control, he has announced a legislative agenda representing his preferred solutions. As part of that agenda, Obama hopes to push for limits on high-capacity magazines, universal background checks and a ban on assault weapons.
Along with these legislative proposals, President Obama issued twenty-three executive orders aimed at reducing the number of illegal guns in circulation and improving the safety of guns already in circulation with research and gun-safety education.
So, did the announcement of President Obama’s actual executive orders calm the paranoia of those preparing for a tyrannical storm?
Of course it didn’t.
President Obama’s proposals were met by a rash of overzealous, inaccurate statements about how his executive orders, are in fact, still tyranny. The President has been compared to Hitler and Stalin, and various groups have sprung up hoping to impeach him over his policies. More to the center of things, Republicans who had previously stated they were open to a gun control discussion have quickly condemned the President’s agenda as a violation of the people’s Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Notably absent in the GOP outrage surrounding the President’s executive orders is an explanation of what exactly was outrageous and tyrannical about them. Should we impeach President Obama for nominating an ATF director? For urging the CDC to research gun violence? What about more armed security in schools – which is one of the NRA and the gun lobby’s most repeated plans – but which is now apparently something only a dictator would have done.
Republicans aren’t being fair in their criticism of President Obama’s executive actions on gun control, but they may be right when they say no substantive legislation will be passed. Of his four main measures, a new assault-weapons ban and the prohibition of high-capacity magazines appear highly unlikely to pass, though universal background checks and penalties for gun trafficking seem likelier to gain traction.
If you were expecting anything more than empty criticisms decrying the President’s “attack on firearms,” you’ll have to look elsewhere. And if you were expecting an expansive gun grab, you got it wrong too. Instead President Obama handed out a list of mostly symbolic and practical measures. So breathe a sigh of relief, Republicans – we’re not talking dictatorship just yet.
Morgan Allison is a student reporter at Erskine College. Follow her on Twitter @m_allison6.
69 comments
Shhhhh!
I WANT the Republicans to Impeach Obama.
That ought to just about do them in!
Come on Republicans!Dont pay ANY attention to this article.
IMPEACH HIM!
NOW!!
Darlin I am sure you knew where you were going and I think you got there in the last sentence. However, I also think you could have done it a little quicker and with less pain to the reader.
Your post reminds me of the newcomer politician who showed up to give a speech to find only one farmer sitting in the meeting hall. The politician was not fazed and gave a rousing one hour and forty-five minute speech.
Upon completing his speech the newcomer stepped down to shake the hand of the farmer. When he asked the farmer how he did the farmer replied, sonny when I go out in the pasture to feed the cattle and find only one cow in the field I don’t empty out the whole damn hay wagon.
The fact is that the “executive order” is a dictatorial power. Sometimes dictatorships lead to tyranny.
That he used this power not to pass law by fiat is certainly better than the possibilities…but the power remains and more importantly he avoided any legal battles by simply “ordering” an army of bureacrats to increase regulations which are in essence by fiat many times, to simply increase the amount of hoops for everyone to jump through over time.
It’s a crafty way of making guns harder to get for everyone using the gov’t machine.
Good for the Black Jesus for being so Machiavellian about things and as Rahm put it: “never want a serious crisis to go to waste”.
Now, all that being said…you didn’t hear the GOP bitching and moaning about “executive orders” when Bush the Dumber put almost 300 into place.
Now, all that being said…you didn’t hear the GOP bitching and moaning about “executive orders” when Bush the Dumber put almost 300 into place.
Skins vs Shirts, but on game day they play for the same team………….the other team
Jim, you know the meaning of irony?
Dang Jim, brevity is the soul of wit: you committed the same sin you are accusing the writer of.
Yep, every morning I am asked, did you take your irony last night.
mph,you know the meaning of bite me?
TON
Wasn’t talking about sinning
Talking about being long winded
Thought she could have hooked the fish with less line and effort
As for my own lack of brevity, if I could have recalled a fucking shorter story to convey my thoughts I would have used the son of bitch
Let the bed wetting continue.
From the Atlantic—
You may be perplexed about President Obama’s recent actions aimed at promoting gun safety. One of the leading scholars of separation of powers, Peter M. Shane, has set out a calm analysis of Obama’s actions here. The president signed three, not 23, executive orders, he notes. Shane’s most important point is this:
“What executive orders cannot do is impose obligations or restrictions on the public, unless Congress, through legislation, has expressly or implicitly conferred authority on the President to do so. It is worth noting that none of President Obama’s executive orders on gun violence do any such things.”
The opposition has many criticisms of the specifics of Obama’s actions. Fair enough; that’s part of the ongoing debate about the proper regulation of firearms. But some on the right like to claim that “executive orders” in themselves are lawless.
If so, that would have come as news to George Washington — who issued, among dozens of proclamations, eight executive orders of the kind we recognize today — and to every president since…
It’s not the World Net Daily, but it’s worth a read.
When you consider ObamaCare, Fast and Furious, Ft. hood shooter, Benghazi, Solyndra, Hurricane Sandy Lies, Jobs, Cap and Trade, “You didn’t Build That,” Keystone, Philly Precinct Corruption, Energy, No Budget, Ho’ Gate….etc…
Until at least ONE of these Disgusting Scandals is Addressed…you to STFU about the RIGHT….
In other words the RIGHT ain’t the GD problem…it’s the WRONG (Obama)….
Thanks, Rush. Try to come up with an original thought, dickbag.
A true American would never attempt to CONTROL a RIGHT.
Kinda like when President George Washington (the father of our country) quelled the “Whiskey Rebellion” over unpaid alcohol taxes???
Must of been part of that marxism shit going on back in the 18th. century. Fucking 18th century liberal assholes putting their noses where it don’t belong, making whiskey is a fucking right and the fucking government needs to keep their noses out of our making whiskey!!
We always knew that uppty Virginian was a socialist!!!
Just like that know-it-all Jefferson – always trying new liberal shit over there in Charlottesville!!
If a president, especially a Republican, issued an executive order containing “symbolic, practical” limitations on freedom of speech, such as barring college students from blogging on the grounds that they have nothing intelligent to say, you would understandably be insulted and offended and see it as a genuine threat to your rights. I would agree with you even though most college students are vapid and shallow and really don’t have anything intelligent to say. Like Ms Allison, they have nothing to offer but sneering insults and condescension. They mindlessly parrot the idiotic crap they heard in their “Victim Studies 101” class. You know, the class with all the academic rigor of a fortune cookie, except that the fortune cookie at least has lucky lotto numbers and the Chinese word for “vegetable” on the back.
But I digress.
It’s a lot easier to appreciate the treat to all our rights when you have some skin in the game, when the right that is threatened is one you hold dear. If that doesn’t mean anything to you – and given the self-absorbtion of college students, it won’t – just remember that when a right you disdain can be limited by the stroke of a pen, your most cherished rights can be destroyed with the same ease.
Dude, +1000 on your rant.
Nice one.
+2000!!!!
Well said Mike.
Great comment.
The RIGHT over-reacting is the LAST thing to worry about…
If you are not worried about the GESTAPO-NAZI left, they must not teach history at Erskine…Because you sure are Ignorant of it…
I honestly don’t buy into all the “THEY TERK YER GERNS!!!” crap that spews forth out of the mouths of the Alex Jones types. However, a ban on the manufacturing of assault weapons for civilians is not going to reduce the number of assault weapons out there (if anything, the threat of the ban has increased that number), is not going to prevent crazed lunatics from getting assault weapons, is not going to prevent crazed lunatics from going on killing sprees with pistols, rifles, shotguns, improvised explosives, poisonous gasses, their car, any form of melee weapon, etc. It won’t reduce crime, it won’t reduce accidents, it won’t make anyone safer.
I don’t own an assault weapon, and short of renting one at a gun range just for the experience of shooting it, I don’t intend on ever using one, but even so, I don’t see the problem with letting a law-abiding citizen of a sound mind do so. I don’t think the assault weapons ban is unconstitutional, however I think it is a poor idea that won’t achieve what its proponents want it to.
If you replace the assault weapon with a pistol and a slew of magazines with 10 bullets or less, the Sandy Hook killer would have still killed a shitload of people. You don’t have to have an assault weapon to fire into a crowded theater and kill lots of people. When people snap, if they want to kill people, they are going to find a way to do it. You will never stop them once they have planned the act and started implementing it.
That being said, the correct response to bad policy isn’t “MORON LUBE,” it is a calm and collected response with facts and real world examples, as well as legitimate suggestions to better respond to and prevent such incidents. And honestly, there is no 100% way to stop these kinds of massacres from happening. If the media wasn’t so busy sensationalizing this shit maybe people would stop and realize that point. Then we wouldn’t be discussing taking away a NORP’s right to own whatever kind of gun, watch whatever kind of movie, play whatever kind of video game, etc.
I’m WARNING you RIGHT: Either Do What I Demand, and Shut Up…or we’ll end up with a Leftwing Dictator who will over-ride the 2nd Amendment…
Go Silent and act like us college students DEMAND…or we’ll end up w/ an arrogant tyrant as president, who governs only for HIS people, and tells you to Carm it…
I’m warning you…
Either Do What I Demand, and Shut Up…or we’ll end up with a Leftwing Dictator who will over-ride the 2nd Amendment…
That’s a pretty good argument for dictatorship right there! lol…
Not much aptitude to recognize sarcasm…huh????
Dictator’s WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE w/ Obama…you FREAKIN IDIOT….
You Must be a liberal….
And a queen for a governor. What great times we live in.
Morgan, IMHO, you are wrong. The 2nd Amendment contains the language…. “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Thus, Obama’s proposed ban on assault weapons clearly violates the constitution. But hey, the 2nd amendment was violated in 1994 with the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, in 1968 with the Gun Control Act of that year, and the National Firearms Act of 1934, so really, who friggin’ cares, right? Funny thing though, these bans all came about under the worst presidents in US history.
Morgan, you just don’t understand gun nuts because you lack a penis, let alone a teeny-tiny nearly microscopic one like most gun nuts have.
I believe the argument would be that the assault weapons ban would not infringe upon one’s right to “keep and bear arms” because it doesn’t make owning an assault weapon illegal, it merely halts the manufacturing of assault weapons for civilian use.
Another argument is that the government does have the right to regulate what guns can be owned by a normal citizen, so long as it doesn’t ban nearly all or absolutely all weapons (which is unquestionably unconstitutional). There’s plenty of laws banning all manners of weapons, usually state laws.
Here’s such a law in SC:
It is unlawful for a person to possess a machine gun, sawed off shotguns and sawed off rifles. Those not subject to the prohibition include members of the armed forces, the National Guard, law enforcement officers, railway policemen, and persons whose employment involves keeping custody of prisoners. Other persons may possess machine guns kept for display as relics and which are rendered harmless and not usable. All machine guns, operable or nonoperable, must be registered with the State Law Enforcement Division.
Prohibitions on possession of machine guns also do not apply to any manufacturer of machine guns or military firearms licensed pursuant to federal law, any person authorized to purchase these weapons by a federal agency, or persons licensed to possess machine guns by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division.
Sawed off shotguns and sawed off rifles may be possessed in compliance with federal and state laws.
nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/south-carolina.aspx
Keep in mind that SCOTUS has struck down total gun bans in Chicago and D.C., but never struck down the previous assault weapons ban, or laws like the above (to my knowledge).
There’s multiple ways to argue the constitution, both how it is written to the letter and the intent that was behind it when it was written. I would say that it would be interesting to see SCOTUS take it on, but then again, I’m not too sure. SCOTUS isn’t exactly infallible.
I don’t get idiots, either like the author of this op-ed piece or so-called pro-gun people, who say that there is nothing in any of this to be worried about. Another Clinton magazine and weapon ban definitely IS something to be worried about. Some of us have suffered financial hardship in recent years and don’t have as much stuff as we would reasonably like to have in our personal armories. Others, who may not be old enough to purchase stuff they would one day like, will be denied the chance to own a new AR or whatever, that has not been shot loose. This is a direct infringement on our right to bear arms and you can bet as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, when this doesn’t stop murders and crimes committed with guns, they will be clamoring for much, much, more in the future.
Some of us have suffered financial hardship in recent years and don’t have as much stuff as we would reasonably like to have in our personal armories. Others, who may not be old enough to purchase stuff they would one day like, will be denied the chance to own a new AR or whatever, that has not been shot loose.
I don’t think that’s too great of an argument against the assault weapons ban, though. We have a right to keep and bear arms, not necessarily a right to a cheap and plentiful supply. That being said, I do think at some point if the ban didn’t expire or have a break period that assault weapons would be ridiculously expensive, to the point of making it nearly impossible for pretty much anyone to own one.
you can bet as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, when this doesn’t stop murders and crimes committed with guns, they will be clamoring for much, much, more in the future.
I’ll agree with you on that. The assault weapons ban didn’t do jack shit before, it won’t do anything again, therefore it won’t satisfy its proponents, at which point they’ll ask for slightly more stringent gun control laws again, and again, and again.
Even if subsequent gun law proposals may be harsh and unreasonable, though, that doesn’t change how reasonable or unreasonable one finds the current law.
Either way, I do hope the ban fails (and fully expect it to).
Look at you, you’re the problem. My family has been on this dirt since 1724 and has been represented in every war this country has fought from The French and Indian War in 1754 to whatever it was in Viet Nam. Can you say that?
…. YES, I CAN
Morgan – thanks for your article – I agree with you 100%.
Just ignore the idiots that infest this forum – they are a sorry lot. And the fact that you are intelligent and female is more than they can handle
Blues, my friends, is a GLOWING example of the liberal religion…and a classic picture of their level of intelligence…
you have no friends you fucking idiot..just like in life outside your moms basement..no friends no respect and not an ounce of common sense..you are the village idiot, the guy who would pick the wrong choice in a one horse race..the guy whose political predictions total a staggering 0-64, our own little sarah palin..you are tiny T.
Morgan: I really did not read to critique you as a writer, but I’m assuming that is your ambition….
And as long as you have the minimal basic skills, as a leftwing radical (anti-2nd amendment) you will likely be accepted by most media w/ open arms…
BUT: If you stay leftist, it will mean going through life un-challenged, very dull and a cliche as a person…
I would ask to actually do some heavy lifting. Check the stats of districts that have banned guns (and see murder rates increased)…..See what happens when you just throw money at education…And: I ask you to Really care (don’t just use) children of men who squirt sperm into women, then flee…Don’t make racist excuses…
Do that: and you’ll grow. Stay liberal and you will be just another lazy, backwards mind…riding heard over a status quo that endangers chidren and perpetuates Hatred of one American toward another…
I know the easy leftwing way is tempting…but be RESPOSIBLE…and Do something REAL with your life…
Thank you…and please don’t cop out…
if do pretty much the opposite of whatever t tells you..does not matter in what regard whether politics or life etc..you will be successful. Or you can be a proven liar, coward and partisan hate filled ignorant asshole like t..really the choice is simple.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I shoot and clean my AR-15 every weekend. I hone my target skills just like a golfer. Shooting my .223 is still cheaper than 18 holes of golf. It takes just as much concentration to hit the X-ring at 200 yards as it does trying to complete a line in a NYK times crossword puzzle. Different strokes for different folks.
Next the ruling elite will tell me I don’t need an SUV or a V8 to get from point A to point B. NASCAR don’t make a whole of sense to me, but 150,000 people watching 50 cars make only a left turn for 3 hours is what America is about.
One mentally ill, evil, fucked-up individual commits a dastardly deed with an object and 300 million people must suffer the consequences and the costs for decades to come. Bullshit! Maybe the Muslims got it right. You steal something you get your hand cut off — no judge no jury.
I can kill a wild boar with a single shot rifle or I can slit its throat. So, don’t tell me how to make my barbecue.
… another excellent post
i can skin a buck and i can run a trotline cause…..,
……cause a country boy can survive! :-)
X-ring at 200 yards??
That’s pussy shooting!!!
“Hittin’ the “V” at 600 yards with an gov’t issued rack grade M-16 (iron-sights only) is where’s it’s at!!!
Plus, I got FREE ammo and PAID to do it!!!
We’re talkin’ Winston P. Wilson Nationals, Camp Robinson, Arkansas baby!!!
Hey Rush,Shawn,and Glen: Wanna shoot for beers??
On second thought, those pussy chickenhawks probably ain’t even man enough to drink a beer. Plus Rush goes for oxycotin anyhoo…
But I’m serious about the challenge………
Sincerely,
Your “token” moderate
“Sparklecity”
“and he killed a “bar” when he was 3….”
The last thing the “redneck” said:
“Let’s kill this bottle of “Jack” before we clean our guns”
there’d be no U.S.A. without the personal ownership of firearms. look at the way the feds handled Occupy protestors (naming them as terrorists), in order to exercise the limits of the law under NDAA and the Patriot Act. and this happened prior to any demonstrations occurring – or any cars being defacated upon.
the most sinister Obama gun control recommendations to me are related to health care and insurance. it is entirely likely the feds will use your personal medical history and interactions with others to assess your “suitability” to own firearms.
anti-gun advocates and politicians know they cannot repeal the 2nd amendment. but they can subvert it – and subvert it they will.
…. Excellent post. I’ve believed that potus has been working on a secret agenda for years, an agenda that is not his personally. He is a puppet controlled by his handlers. I also believe he is either a hollow-headed person or has silly putty for brains. My opinion is that he is like the chocolate Easter Bunny candy I used to get from my parents – looked big, looked tasty, looked solid, but when I started to eat it (always the ears first) it was always hollow inside; now, each year, I knew it was going to be hollow but I still had the hope that it would be solid chocolate. As an adult I am now much wiser. I’m not alone in knowing that he is a phony, a fraud, a shill and a sham – but still dangerous.
Nut Case!
The Right CAN’T Over-react…
Maybe if the Jewish people of 1930’s Germany would have OVER-REACTED to Hitler…the Holacaust would have been avoided…
Obama is much more akin to Hitler than any president I can recall…
Worrying about OVER-REACTION is just a ploy by the Radicals to Over-run us…
….. Excellent statement because you have opened the door to some different thinking. When I took my Jewish sweetheart to the Holocaust Museum in DC (during Rolling Thunder), her reactions surprised me and I had a revelation that stays with me still. I may explain this later because the explanation is too long and detailed to post this morning.
BigT:
Have you ever read/heard/learned of the Warsaw Uprising of 1943???
Probably not or you wouldn’t post trash as above
A true tragedy that….
Sparkle: You Leftists try to project what you are onto the enemy…and because of the corrupt media, and stupid people, you can get away w/ it a good bit…
But the proof in in the puddin’…and that puddin, when made by the liberals, always contains a bitter pill…
Be it gun laws, jobs, education, green energy, family or race…your Solutions are just about ALL that is tried…and all you do is FAIL…over and over…
When even a LITTLE Conservatism is applied…it is a resounding success…
So STFU w/ your Warsaw peropaganda Bull $#!*…We’ve seen your answers and they are all WRONG…
that means no he is not familiar with the uprising or any of that dam book shit..he dont need no books,,he knows everything from who will win elections (oh wait a sec..forgot total fail on that one..0-64), how to write comedy shows for tv, or how to insult people from your keyboard and pray they never find out who you really are as then you would have to man up and say some of the cowardly proven lies to someones face instead of cowering like a small girl in a thunderstorm but hey we know he is too much of a pussy to man up and back his words so he will keep feeling he contributes with his worthless, fact less posts on a political website where he is viewed as a total joke of a man but hey at least he has an opinion on how to raise your kids so they turn out like him. Ahh your mama must be so proud.
I’ve been saying the “right” has been overreacting for a couple of weeks.
Just look at the bare ammo shelves as proof positive………..
The young woman is correct for calling BS on the this.
The far right is just as emotional and irrational as the far left(in this case, maybe even MORE so). I truly do believe you can reason with a liberal more than you can a far-right wingnut.
SparkleCity. Come on now. Come up to Camp Perry with me this year and shoot on my team. I’ll lend you my M1 Garand for a service rifle match. It’s still competitive at 200 yards, my friend. Between the two of us we could take home the cup.
Also, please give me your review on 0-Dark Thirty. Any good?
We might could.
I know about Camp Perry but my “thing” was rack grade M-16’s and more specifically the Beretta M-9. I was primary pistol team and secondary rifle at Camp Robinson, Arkansas National/International military competition 2001,2001 & 2010 and military matches in NC & SC 1999 – 2010 (when I wasn’t deployed in the “Sandbox”).
I’m referring to “Combat Competition”: Active/Reserve/National Guard matches – full “battle rattle” 100% of the time including 1.5 mile run with “battle rattle” (till around 2009 when we started 100 yard “Dashes” – it was a joke; I missed the 1.5 mile run myself; that seperated the men from the boys).
No fancy shooting gear – just shoot what “Uncle Sugar” gives you on an every day basis.
A great equalizer for sure and showed what you are made of.
I miss it……..
“Zero Dark Thirty”(we always called it “O” Dark Thirty – but the meaning remains the same) is a good flick. I caught scenes of what it was like in 2002-2003. Baghram is so different from what it was like in 2002 – REAL Wild West back then!!! Last time I was in Baghram was 2005 and it had changed so much……. Lord knows what is like now!!
Seeing SEALS sitting on a piece of shit car seat/couch brought back memories of the early days. Back in 2002-2003 we had nothing and a piece of shit car seat/couch (if you could scrounge one that is..) made a good place to sit in the middle of nowhere. Been there,done that, got the T-shirt…..
Basically, go see it. It’s a good flick all the way around.
Not too pretentious as far as I’m concerned…….
Looking forward to “War Z” and February’s “Walking Dead” for a pure escape!!!
BTW:
The lady that made “Zero Dark Thirty” made “Hurt Locker”
I have no interest in watching “Hurt Locker” – ever
Too many bad memories……..
These days if a war movie is too intense, I don’t care to watch it.
I never thought I would be that way.
No shit
Wow: In Obama’s America…exercising you rights, in accoradance w/ the LAW is OVER-REACTING…
Isn’t characterizing it as abnormal behavior the step before the government moves to take away that Constitutional Right…
If Obama don’t like Americans doing it…he just decrees that you can’t…’Cause he says so…
Question is: How much of Obama’s ‘OVER-REACTION’ will you sit still and take???
Gonna run out and buy some tin foil…… gonna be a real shortage soon with all these crazies!!!
Astonished –
You sure got that right . . . you can find more aluminum foil on FITS that you can at Alcoa . . .
I posted this in another section — check out this video! Could it ever happen again? Comments?
http://voxvocispublicus.homestead.com/Battle-of-Athens.html
It could happen again. Watch for widespread voter fraud from the left in 2014. Several states will have voter ID laws in effect for those elections, and that will help reduce voter fraud. Expect the left to find new ways to intimidate voters.
I didn’t see Republicans overreacting. They just won’t obey executive orders that are not law. And it is doubtful any of the suggestions that require legislation will be put into law. There are too many Democrats against weakening the 2nd Amendment. Keep in mind life does not always reflect reality when one is operating from an academic environment and viewpoint.
I would be willing to bet Alan has never witnessed the GOP over reacting..ever. its always those dam libs and dems.. Patriot act..oh wait a sec.. warrant less search and wire taps, arresting people at political conventions..oh wait a sec.. prohibiting peaceful protest..oh wait a sec..well never mind its all the dems fault.
Common Sense as usual pops up to spew its garbage anywhere and everwhere. oh wait a sec, oh wait a sec, oh wait a sec.
@Common Sense. Not so, I saw Republicans overreact to raising taxes with no spending cuts, but spending increases instead. It just happened recently under a canard called the fiscal cliff.
Allan, please list instances of voter fraud from the left. Maybe you can pick up where the SC House Republicans left off. You know, the 200 plus instances that turned out to be zero .
Next provide an example of voter intimidation. I can certainly provide instances of Republican governors purging voter rolls in the hopes of excluding democratic voters. I can also provide evidence of gerrymandering being the reason Republicans control the House. In any event, I suspect you’re one of the loons that think that Acorn swung the election to Obama despite the fact it shuttered three years ago.
Additionally, you seem to think that Executive Orders originated with Obama. Weird, seem to remember reading George Washington used them.
Tin foil reference is spot on.
Morgan,
There are a few facts that everybody should know before they form any opinions about gun control. Gun control is bipartisan. It was none other than Ronald Reagan (seen as the icon of conservatism and individual rights by most Republicans) that supported the Brady Bill. Reagan is also credited with being the tipping force that brought about the first assault rifle ban after he left office. Several legislators pointed to his support as weighing heavily in their decision to support the ban which passed 216 to 214. What gun rights advocates should worry about right now is that if a vote were held today, there would probably be a lot of Republicans who would vote for a ban.
Another thing people should realize is that there are a lot of false facts and bending of the truth being perpetrated by gun control advocates in the wake of the school tragedy. Firstly, there is the statement that assault rifles have no place either as a sporting firearm or a home defense. There have only been about 3.5 million( AR-15 alone) sold since 1986 (and after 9-11 sales skyrocketed ) so there are some that feel they have a place on the range, in the field, and certainly in the home, regardless of what Piers Morgan thinks. And gun enthusiasts know that it is the cosmetic appearance that scares the gun control advocates because so many look similar to the M-16. It is rather ironic, because I was in the Army when the switch to the M-16 took place. We took basic with the M-14 and when we went overseas we were issued the M-16. When we first looked at the M-16 we thought it looked like a toy. “You can tell its Mattel – its swell “is what was often heard to be said about the new rifle. Mattel was a leading toy manufacturer of the time.
Another way the public is being misled is the information they are fed about the semi-automatic. To hear the gun control advocates, the semi-automatic (fired with every trigger pull) is a relatively new technology designed exclusively for the battlefield. In fact, the Browning A-5 shotgun (a semi-automatic) the most popular shotgun of all time was designed in 1898 and patented in 1900. So you see semi-automatic shotguns and rifles have only been used by sportsman for hunting and shooting for just a little over a hundred years.
Another way the gun control advocates are misleading the public is not coming up with a working definition of assault weapon. They keep pointing to a picture of an AR-15, but stress a semi-automatic with a clip of over 10 rounds – a definition that could easily include about 80 percent of the handguns now used for home defense. It is not a clip by the way, but a magazine, so this sheds some light on how much the gun control people really know about guns.
The one thing that it is important that everyone understand is that the real agenda, no matter how much the gun control advocates say they respect the second amendment, is to totally disarm the American public. That is why you hear such phrases as “first step”, “a good start”, etc. This is why the people that understand what is going on are so adamant in the goal to not give an inch as far as their second amendment rights are concerned. And be assured these people that are not just on the right, they are on the left too.
It is not putting armed guards in schools or denying people adjudicated as violent criminals the ability to buy a gun that bothers the NRA – it is the power play to ban guns, any type of guns that bothers the NRA. And one must remember the NRA has no power, except the power the people they represent have at the polling place. And I hope it is enough to stop the gun control schemers.
Mr. “Dixie”
Actual trivia fact:
The early(maybe even later models)M-16’s front stocks WERE made by Mattel. Remember how you (and still do the last time I fired one in 2010) pulled back on the front stock ring to release the front stock halves? If you looked inside the aluminum heat guards on the stock halves, “Mattel, Inc” was stamped on the heat guards!!
Maybe all the plastic components (rear stock & front stock halves)were made by Mattel back then but I know for sure the front stock halves were. I remember our drill sergeants saying the “Mattel – its SWELL!! slogan during our first class on disassembly/assembly of the M-16.
“Clips” vs. “magazines”: I think the words are interchangeable myself but you would never have heard me say that to my drill sergeant back in 1971!!!
M-14: It was phased out before I joined in 1971 but I always wanted to shoot one. I always thought it was a good looking rifle and I sure wanted to have one during the Yom Kippur alert of 1973 because of its greater range & stopping power (“stay the hell away from me” potential) but that’s why I had the M-203 (which replaced the M-79). The M-203 was/is the best of two worlds (5.56 mm rifle AND 40mm grenade launcher). I loved shooting the thing.
I have always thought the M-14 would be a good desert rifle. I do understand that some Special Ops have a modified “shorty” version of the M-14.
Sparkle, you may need to do a little fact checking on the Mattel claim.
Bonner, you might check out Snopes and see the “insert” (at the top) about the grips that were made by Mattel. The legend about the entire rifle being made by Mattel is false. The early front stokes were made by Mattel. You were too quick on the trigger to criticize.