Obama reelected. Now what?

In case you've been under a rock for the past few days, President Obama has been reelected. And before the votes were even counted, the usual suspects were up to their usual activities.

And with Obama unfettered by any need to be relected, we can finally take him for his word when he says things like, "Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced." Will that ban come through congress? Probably not. But if it does, I do not think he will hesitate to sign it. Or will that ban come in the form of an executive order like the Dream Act? We will find out soon enough. Just wait for the next high profile shooting. It will be the perfect catalyst for him to say, "After today's tragedy, i've decided to take executive action and ban the further sale and manufacture of high-capacity magazines."

President Obama will also have a chance to appoint at least one Supreme Court Justice. I've already explained how that's bad news.

As gun owners, we definitely live in interesting times. The vast, gun-ignorant majority that propelled Obama to victory will no doubt support any anti-gun effort of the Democratic party as long as it's couched in enough fuzzy, feel-good language about stopping crime, saving children, etc. Therefore, it's more important than ever for us to engage in outreach to the gun-ignorant, counter the lies of the gun controllers/banners, and make our presence known to our congress critters.

All you need to know about the presidential election.

Taken from the October 16, 2012 Presidential Debate

Barack Obama:

And so what I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.

Mitt Romney:

Yeah, I'm not in favor of new pieces of legislation on -- on guns and taking guns away or making certain guns illegal.

Both Romney and Obama are masters of the Non-Answer, but it seems a real answer escaped both of them that night: Obama wants to ban scary looking guns that are responsible for fewer than 2% of the homicides in this country and are peacefully used by millions of shooters for recreation, hunting and competition. Mitt Romney does not.

With those few words, they have both made my decision on who to vote for that much easier. Hopefully that decision was made that much easier for you as well.

Obama reaffirms his desire for an assault weapons ban.

Obama: AK-47s belong on battlefield, not streets

“I – like most Americans – believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms,” Obama said. “I think we recognize the traditions of gun ownership passed on from generation to generation, that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage. “But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers and not in the hands of crooks. They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities,” he added.

The real Obama is back. The one that made me start this blog. Things have been slow around here, but not it looks like I will have plenty to write about between now and election night and perhaps beyond.

Snuffy Pfleger is mad.

AN ANGRY PFLEGER TO OBAMA: 'YOU WILL NOT IGNORE VIOLENCE IN CHICAGO'

Referring to the deadly shooting in Aurora, Colorado where accused James Holmes, a 24-year-old former doctoral student killed 12 people and wounded 58 others, Father Michael L. Pfleger Sunday said while he loves President Barack Obama “you will not ignore the violence in Chicago.” Pfleger asked everyone to call President Barack Obama at 202-456-1111, and ask him to reinstate the assault weapons ban and to help reduce the violence in Chicago.

Does Snuffy not realize that Chicago has an assault weapons ban? Does Snuffy also not realize that Chicago has a higher violent crime rate than most cities where assault weapons aren't banned?

Something tells me he didn't really think this through.

And it begins.

A gunman opened fire early Friday at a suburban Denver movie theater, leaving 14 people dead and at least 50 others injured, Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates said.

A horrible situation and red meat for the gun controllers/banners. Expect the usual arguments from the usual suspects (mental health screening, assault weapons, assault clips) and some new ones(civiliam access to body armor,smoke/tear gas). And with this being an election year, expect the talking heads to push guns into the election debate.


UPDATE: Piers Morgan goes first.

More Americans will buy guns after this, to defend themselves, and so the dangerous spiral descends. When/how does it stop? #Colorado
— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) July 20, 2012

Larry King with a glaring error

We remain one of the few countries in the world where anyone in the world can get a gun. in this case a machine gun. This is absurd
— Larry King(@kingsthings) July 20, 2012

Jesse Jackson needs to stay in his lane.

Yesterday, Jesse Jackson brought his Professional Victim Roadshow to my beautiful state.

OKLAHOMA CITY -- The Rev. Jesse Jackson says his Rainbow PUSH Coalition will organize to change gun laws in Oklahoma, where a shooting spree recently terrorized residents in a predominantly black section of Tulsa.

Jackson and members of the Oklahoma Legislative Black Caucus met Wednesday at the state Capitol and talked to reporters about concerns over the case and other recent violence. The civil rights activist called the Tulsa incident a "terrorist attack" that sent "traumatizing waves of fear across Tulsa and the state."

"We cannot allow the terrorists to steal our dreams," Jackson said.

...

Jackson's Chicago-based Rainbow PUSH Coalition is supporting a ban on assault weapons, while challenging both legislation that would allow open carry of guns in Oklahoma and a current law that lets residents in that state use deadly force when necessary to protect themselves against death or great bodily harm.

That is rich. If five guys getting shot is a "terrorist attack", what do you call this? Armageddon? Jesse really needs to concentrate on the "terrorist attacks" in his own city before he goes meddling in the business of others.

And speaking of terrorists, what is it going to take to make Jesse and the rest of his fellow race hustlers realize that the only terrorists terrorizing the black community are other black people? If I were to be shot as I walked out of my front door, 9 times out of 10, my killer would look like Trayvon Martin, not George Zimmerman. In other words, for every 10 black men killed, 9 of them were killed by other black men. That has nothing to do with open carry, assault weapons, or Stand Your Ground laws. It has everything to do with the break down of the black family unit, in which Jesse's liberal handlers had a hand in.

So please, Jesse: Stay in your own lane. Go home. You may find a few wrong headed supporters here, but for the most part, Oklahomans do not like you, do not like what you represent, and do not desire the "society" that you are peddling to us.

"...socially responsible usage."

From the comment section of the latest Fudd screed:

Its common sense that we enact liquor control laws in much the same way that it is common sense that we enact gun control laws that celebrate and protect socially responsible usage (ie target practice, and hunting) but which restrict those items which have no responsible use (ie military grade weapons, large capacity magazines, and other weapons whose only realistic purpose is killing large amounts of things quickly).

Is there no "socially responsible way" to use "military grade weapons, large capacity magazines, and other weapons whose only realistic purpose is killing large amounts of things quickly"?

If I recall correctly, more people are injured/killed in one season of hunting than at all the machine gun shoots around the country combined. So which weapons are truly socially responsible?

Carolyn McCarthy is all of a sudden concerned about state rights.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

My question to her: Where was the concern for states rights during the 2004 Assault Weapons Ban that you campaigned so hard for? If a state has the "right" to determine who can and can't legally carry a concealed firearm, then don't they also have the right to determine who can and can't own an "assault weapon" or a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition?

"We don't need states like Texas, Arizona and Alaska telling us how to protect our people from gun violence."

Says Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, a Democrat, is a U.S. Senator from New Jersey.

My response: Likewise, the rest of the the United States (especially the free states like Texas, Arizona, and Alaska) don't need the likes of you and your fellow gun banners/controllers telling us what kind of guns we can own, how many rounds of ammunition they can have in them, and whether or not we can sell them without government intrusion. We also don't take kindly to you throwing due process in the shredder either.

Have terrorists ever had a problem acquiring weapons?

Aside from the fact that you can't buy machine guns at gun shows, has a terrorist ever had a problem getting guns? Guns are all but completely outlawed in India, but that had no effect on the Mumbai Massacre. You could completely outlaw the sale of firearms in the US and go door-to-door and pull a Diane Feinstein and you still couldn't stop a terrorist attack.

Unsurprisingly, the gun-controllers/banners are set to exploit their new terrorist friend, Adam Gadahn.



A mass terrorist shooting is inevitable on US soil and there is only one way to limit the damage of such an event. We have to do what the Indian citizens couldn't do and what the Indian police didn't do: Shoot back.

Rachel Maddow interviews a baby RINO. Lies, myths, and misinformation abound.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If you don't want to subject yourself to watching the video, here are the highlights:

1:13 - McCain goes in on "semi-assault rifles". Considering "semi-assault rifles" do not exist, she's more than likely referring to Josh Sugarmman's invented term "assault weapons". A term used to demonize some of the most popular and least abused firearms on the market.

1:30 - Maddow goes on about the standard capacity magazine for a Glock 19 being 10-12 rounds (which is wrong). She also states that Jared Loughner could not have bought 33 round magazines during the Assault Weapons Ban. That's wrong too.

2:35 - McCain plays the Dick Cheney card, because when it comes to guns, Dick Cheney is the guy you should trust.

3:03 - Slippery slope argument is brought up and how gun owners shouldn't fear it, ignoring the fact that gun control groups consider their agenda "the first step" on what can only be assumed to be a downward slope towards increasing the restrictions on guns.

4:45 - Maddow starts again on the false notion that if the Assault Weapons Ban had been in place, Jared Loughner wouldn't have had a 33 round magazine.

6:15 - McCain demonstrates that she has absolutely no idea what the gun show loophole is. She describes it as, "buying a gun the day you are present". Massive fail.

7:30 - McCain says her belief in banning many standard capacity magazines is not popular at the NRA convention. Geez... Ya think? She also says she doesn't own a "semi-assault rifle", which isn't surprising considering such a thing does not exist. She also says that she doesn't see a need for the average citizen to own one.

9:10 - Maddow brings up the fact that 200+ people who were on the terrorist watch list were able to buy guns. Naturally, she ignores some important facts: 1). none of the people on the terrorist watch list have been convicted of an act of a crime. 2). There are 2 year olds on the terrorist watch list. 3). There is this little thing called due process where the government can't strip you of your rights without things like trials and actually letting you know why they're doing. It's odd that such an avid critic of Bush as Maddow is actually endorsing Bush doctrine.

11:50 - Again, McCain says she doesn't own a "semi-assault rifle". This time she follows it up with some "ZOMG they're so powerful!"

And there you have it folks. If the Second Amendment is sold up the river, it will be at the hands of so-called "conservatives" like Megan McCain, not people like Barack Obama, Carolyn McCarthy, Michael Bloomberg, and the other obvious and outspoken enemies of the Second Amendment. In fact, i'd consider the ignorance of people like Megan McCain the second biggest threat to the Second Amendment right after gun owner apathy.

Because "High Capacity Magazine" wasn't sexy enough...

And "Big Bullet Blasting Boxes" was just too stupid.

Jim Kessler: An anti-gunner with real commonsense?

He said this in regards to President Obama's recent gun editorial:

“Actually, I like this,” emailed Jim Kessler, a former director of policy and research at Americans for Gun Safety. “There will be a knee-jerk reaction among some who will say, “Why no clip ban?” But I think on both substance and political grounds, a high-capacity clip ban is the wrong way to go. There were roughly 12,000 gun homicides last year, and I’ll wager that less than 10 were caused by bullets 11 through 30 in someone’s magazine. The problem is bullets 1, 2, and 3 –- not 11, 12, and 13."

This makes far more (real) commonsense than the uninformed rants about magazine capacity we saw coming from the gun-controllers/banners. And he's right. Your average gang banger isn't going to stand around and fire 30 rounds of ammunition or even 10. Especially when someone is firing back at him.

Intended Consequences.

Apparently, McCarthy's magazine ban has two-fold benefits for the gun-banners: Not only does it ban standard capacity magazines for many guns, it will also result in more people inelgible to legally own guns by making one a felon for simply inheriting a dead relatives magazines or firearms that have standard capacity magazines:



Am I still supposed to believe people like Brady Campaign member Joan Peterson when she says, "We have, as you now know by my writings, no intention to bother you guys who are law abiding."?

That's a rhetorical question by the way. Of course they're not going to bother the law-abiding. It's long been gun-banner strategy to create entirely new classes of criminals out of law-abiding gun owners. McCarthy's magazine ban is just the latest example.

Open letter to Chief Bill Citty.

Rather than repost the whole letter, you can better read it here.

It was in response to comments made by Oklahoma City Chief Only One and potential Oath Breaker, Bill Citty in response to the shooting of police officer Katie Lawson by two illegal immigrants.

This is something very unusual for Oklahoma. Gun banners are a rare breed here. More interesting was a subsequent city council meeting where councilmen Sam Bowman and Pete White applauded Citty's comments. Who knew we had so many closet gun banners in high places? This is what complacency does. Brian Walters was the sole councilman to stand up for the 2nd Amendment.

In Oklahoma, rarely are guns a political issue. As a result, candidates are rarely if ever questioned on their views on guns and gun rights. It looks like that needs to change.

The real Barack Obama will stand up. (in a few weeks)

While Barack Obama The Gun Banner was missing from the SOTU Address, he will soon make an appearance within the next two weeks.

via Newsweek:

Obama didn’t mention guns in his speech because of the omnipresent controversy surrounding the Second Amendment and gun control. Tuesday’s speech was designed to be more about the economy and how, as Obama repeated nine times, the U.S. could “win the future.”
But in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress to strengthen current laws, which now allow some mentally unstable people, such as alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background check.

Glock's shareholders quiver in anticipation.

Anti-gunners scrambling to poison the well.

You know you've lost the debate when the premise of your argument is a fallacy.

Joan Peterson the Brady Campaign:

"The Second Amendment says nothing about the right to large capacity magazines for the purpose of killing as many people as possible without reloading."

Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign:

"...it was a clearly dangerous man who had way too easy access to a gun with a high-capacity ammunition magazine -- good only for killing many people quickly. "

Baldr Odionson of Ceasefire Oregon:

"OTC medication and high performance cars are not *intended* for killing large numbers of people, unlike those weapons and extended magazine clips."

That's just a few examples, but it's easy to see where this is heading. The post-Tuscon gun-banner agenda is now to push forward the belief that a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition is a magic talisman of evil. That one can have no other reason for owning one than to kill large numbers of people.

So what is the antidote for this poison? It's very simple: There are millions of 30+ round capacity magazines in circulation and the vast majority are used for lawful purposes. Magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition are simply not a problem. The fact that it took such an extraordinary event to even start talk of a magazine ban is telling.

Will the real Barack Obama stand up?

Tonight is the State of the Union Address. When it comes to guns, Barack Obama has two choices: He can continue down his current path of hiding from and avoiding his pre-POTUS roots as a big-city gun banner OR we will witness the resurgence of the real Barack Obama. The anti concealed-carry, anti "assault weapon", Fudd-pandering elitist this blog was created to examine.

Watch this space.

UPDATE: In terms of gun control, the SOTU Address was a non-event. President Obama said nothing about guns and the only people who noticed were the members of gun banner brigade and George Stephanopoulos.

What does this mean? Nothing really. Obama's position hasn't changed since he has taken office.

From the Today Show:

MATT LAUER: And real quickly, if you will, in the wake of those tragic shootings out in Tucson, there have been calls by some for tougher gun laws in this country. The mayor of New York City, at an event yesterday called on the President to use this opportunity to get tough on gun laws and to change the way background checks are done for gun purchasers. Will the President directly address gun control in tonight's speech?

VALERIE JARRETT: I'm not gonna preview for tonight what he is going to say in the speech, specifically, but what I will say is obviously we're gonna have an empty seat in the chamber. Congresswoman Giffords, although she is recovering, she has a long way to go. It is a reminder of how we have to work to bring down crime, how we have to work to build an environment of civility where we can disagree without leading to violence. And the President clearly has always stated that he supports the assault weapons ban. So I don't want to get to much into the details of tonight. But certainly an empty seat in the House is a reminder for everyone, not just there this evening, but around the country.

It's obvious that President Obama has realized that gun control (especially the assault weapon ban) is bad politics pushed by a small, yet vocal minority and he is not willing to risk the rest of his political agenda on the hunches of few anti-gun busybodies.

Answering Joan Peterson and her friends.

More than likely my reply to her post will go down the hole of Reasoned Discourse, so I repost it here in verbatim:

"A brave man, Meacham, to dare to mention that he is a gun owner and a hunter and yet favors reasonable gun laws."

Meacham is not a gun owner. He is what is colloquially known among gun enthusiasts as a "Fudd". He only owns guns as a consequence of hunting. He is under the delusion that the 2nd Amendment protects hunting and sport shooting. He shares this delusion with your quoted friends, Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, the Brady Campaign, and our two recently appointed Supreme Court justices. Thankfully, Fudds make up less than 15% of people who own guns

Personally, I am unconcerned with the opinions of Fudds when it comes to the issue of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is not about shooting Bambi and Thumper twice a year with your great grandpappy's muzzle loader. It's not about fine rifles and shotguns. It's not about sporting arms or collecting antiques.

The 2nd Amendment is the Appleseed Project. It is the ugly, black plastic covered, semi-automatic guns with the 30 round magazines. The 2nd Amendment protects the non-sporting arms and usable, modern guns. Specifically the ones that you shoot people with, not furry woodland critters.

"Maybe banning those magazines will reduce the demand from many that pistols and military style semi-auto assault weapons actually be banned. (This just might be a doable compromise)."

Baloney. After the last Assault Weapons ban was passed, the very next thing the gun banners did was draft Brady Bill II which included a ban on even more firearms.

I don't think you really know the meaning of compromise. Compromise doesn't mean you can take something from me and I should be glad to have what little you left me with. That's called "theft". Compromise is when both parties give and receive. If you want a magazine ban, you have to give us something in exchange.

Unsurprisingly, none of the gun control bloggers can name a single gun law they'd repeal in exchange for a gun law they want passed. So there won't be any support for a ban from me.

The smell of freshly laid Astroturf.

It seems that the newest strategy of the gun ban lobby is to create fake gun owners who agree with or propose the most asinine legislation.

Eh. Just judge for yourself. Some choice excerpts:

The basics on magazines: they are attached into a particular type of gun to provide an individual with a certain number of bullets without having to reload. A pistol, like the one I own, only has 5 in the chamber and does not use a magazine.

...

Just as we're not able to have certain type of bullets or silencers for safety reasons, high capacity magazines need to fall into this same category. One possible consensus - maybe we can propose that high capacity magazines are treated the same way as silencers/suppressors - if your state allows them (only 38 of the 50 do), you have to go through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to register for silencer ownership and have it registered. It doesn't mean that you can't have one in your gun collection - it's just registered through the ATF.

Clearly the opinion of someone who knows nothing about the NFA process or someone who knows about and simply has nefarious intent.