The personal thoughts and comments of Gene, "The Aggie."

Use any information found here at your own risk. I am not responsible for the consequences of your use, misuse or abuse, of this information. I do not advocate or condone violence except for lawful protection of life, liberty and, in very limited cases, property. Nothing included in this site is to be taken as legal advice.


NOTE:
"The Aggie" neither controls or
endorses the sites that Google displays in this ad bar.

'Gun-Free Zones' are only gun-free, until somebody brings a gun. - Unknown

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Obama Tells the Truth! - Almost

Laws alone can't stop violence: Obama (H/T: World Net Daily)

Does any one else have a problem with Barack Hussein Obama's (or Hil's or John's), for that matter) claim to understand problems he contributed to? After all, this issue concerns Chicago, IL. Isn't Obama the senator from Illinois? If he didn't contribute to the problem OR solution, just what did he do while taking the taxpayers' money?

"Obama, who had trouble with gun owners in Pennsylvania and other states, said he has never supported a blanket ban on handguns but favors letting local officials enact gun regulation appropriate for their areas. Banning guns has not always proven effective, he said."

Just this one sentence boggles my little mind.

" . . . he has never supported a blanket ban on handguns . . . "
Not yet. All of his actions are calculated to incrementally ban possession of all firearms in his sphere of influence.

" . . . favors letting local officials enact gun regulation appropriate for their areas."
Of course! That way the currently lawful firearms owner can be declared a "criminal" by his unknowing violation of "gun-control" (people-control) laws of the next county, city, town, village, sub-division, whatever. Damned if you do, Damned if you don't. That's the way to go! Make it too difficult too own a firearm. Then, they won't! Who needs a firearm for personal or home defense? It's just your life at risk. Not B.H.O's. He's got US Secret Service details now. When he's no longer a candidate, he's got the money to live in a safe area, work in a safe location and hire an armed driver/body guard to tool him around. And his family, too.

If this isn't elitist thinking, I don't know what is!

"Banning guns has not always proven effective, he said."
Barack's not quite right here, either. Weapons bans have worked about as good as alcohol prohibition worked early last century. Zip, Nein, Nada, No-way Jose.

As far as I know, only our favorite gun-banners the Nazis of Germany, and other elitist regimes, have ever made gun-control work. Look where they are, now. It took "gun-control" plus so-called ethnic-cleansing (murder-in-the-name-of-racial-superiority). Gun-control has killed 200 million plus during this previous century. Why do we want more of what patently doesn't work?

Oh, I forgot. Gun control works! It just works against the freedom of the individual. No big deal if you have the money and/or friends to get around its inconveniences.

But wait, there's more!

"We've got to tighten up our gun laws. I've said before we should have a much tougher background check system, one that's much more effective and make sure there aren't loopholes out there like the gun show loophole."

"We've got to tighten up our gun laws."
"Tighten up our gun laws"? Hey, Chicago has some of the most stringent gun laws in the country, right behind Washington D.C. Can anyone actually fantasize that they're working? That's why I'm on this rant, right now. They are not working.

" . . . we should have a much tougher background check system, one that's much more effective . . . "
I can't speak for Chicago or Illinois, but Texas' so-called "loose" background check requires FBI background check and fingerprinting. In addition, concealed handgun licensees exhibit a minute fraction of the per capita crime rate of the general population. Yeah, tougher background checks. That'll do it for sure! NOT!

" . . . and make sure there aren't loopholes out there like the gun show loophole."
Loophole? What loophole? Since when does an individual require a license to sell personal property? The so-called "gun show loophole" illegitimately links commercial behavior with private behavior just because it's conducted under the same roof. If you go to a car show where dealers and individuals exhibit their products side-by-side, and sell your personal vehicle, are you going to file the necessary, and infamous, IRS Schedule C the next April 15th? I don't think so!

"As president, I'm gong to make sure we know if guns are being sold by unscrupulous gun dealers not abiding by existing laws. We should know about that."

Yep. "Unscrupulous" gun dealers, like Red's Trading Post? BATFE is supposed to being do that already, but they're kinda busy closing down the good guys.

S-T: As a state legislator, you voted against a bill which would let people with orders of protection [against others] carry guns and another that would have barred municipalities from punishing people who kept guns in their homes. Why?

B.O.: I felt that [the first one] was a precedent for conceal-and-carry laws. There has not been any evidence that allowing people to carry a concealed weapon is going to make anybody safer. [The second one] is relevant to the D.C. handgun issue. I wanted to preserve the right of local communities to enforce local ordinances and this would have overturned municipalities being able to enforce their own ordinances. We can argue about whether the ordinances work or not. But I wanted to make sure that local communities were recognized as having a right to regulate firearms.

" . . . As a state legislator, you voted against a bill which would let people with orders of protection [against others] carry guns . . . " ". . . I felt that [the first one] was a precedent for conceal-and-carry laws."
Fact. Let's keep the defenseless, well . . . , defenseless. No brainer! Yep, let's not allow the sheeple to think they could ever have the right, much less, the ability, to carry an effective personal defense weapon.

" There has not been any evidence that allowing people to carry a concealed weapon is going to make anybody safer."
BS! I guess he's to busy legislating/electioneering to bother with reading the results that put the bald lie to his words. Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas and 30 or more states fall into the safer column. Washington DC, Massachusetts, California, Illinois (Ouch! That might hurt! ) and the remaining minority of states fall in to the less-than-safer column.

"But I wanted to make sure that local communities were recognized as having a right to regulate firearms."
We do not allow local communities to regulate automobile safety standards, licensing or registration. Those are reserved for the states' and federales. Obama is following the normal Democrat/socialist policy of being consistent in his policy statements only when it fits his point of view.

Shee-eeish!

S-T: But you don't want to take a stand on the D.C. gun-ban law?
B.O.: I don't like taking a stand on pending cases.

Nice dodge.

God Bless Ya'll !

No comments:

Popular Posts