Obama and Eric Holder’s Justice Department has spent the last four years telling states and local law enforcement officials that the government would not enforce certain federal laws regarding illegal immigrants, and also that local and state authorities had no power to enforce those or other federal laws.
So, now that Obama is trying to ban assault weapons and larger ammunition magazines, creating a national registry of gun owners, to enhance harassment of said owners by the media, while issuing 23 executive orders, some concerning additional restrictions on gun owners, local authorities are saying to the Federal government, “not in my jurisdiction.”
From Oregon to Mississippi, Obama’s executive orders have struck a nerve among rural lawmen and legislators, many of whom vow to ignore the restrictions or even stop the federal government from enforcing its gun policies under executive orders in their areas.
The Supreme Court has twice ruled that Americans not only have a right to have guns for protection, but have a Second Amendment right to bear those arms.
However, the American Federalis continue to ignore those laws with which they disagree - so turnabout is only fair play to keep the federal government from encroaching on local and state implementation of gun laws.
They also used to say “there are crazies among them, but don’t hold all the muslims responsuble for 9/11″. With guns, everyone is crazy in their eyes. Ever get the feeling they really care more about criminals than law-abiding citizens? The evidence is plentiful.
I don’t know if you have read Illinois SB2899. it is much harsher than the NY law or anything coming out of DC. You should do a column on that, Ted. Nobody is really talking much about it.
The majority of Americans want stricter gun control and would like to see our government take the initiative to curb gun violence without framing it around the crybaby wants and needs of the NRA.
Steverino: You are making statements that are not backed up by data. (shame on you) It seems funny that everyone I talk to and tweet, wants to preserve the 2nd amendment. But then again all of the people I talk to are hard working people who want to protect themselves and their country. So it all comes down to who you talk to now, doesn’t it?
And the gun issue has little to do with curbing gun violence, than it does curbing opinions and ideals that might be backed up by an AK47. Now the real problem the government has is not guns, but different opinions and people who refuse to be sheep. And this attitude my friend built America, and why our forefathers put the 2nd amendment in the constitution.
Unfortunately, IMHO, Steverino is correct.
According to the gallup poll, 53% support Obama’s gun control program and 41% do not. The issue, according to Gallup, remains highly partisan – 82 percent of Democrats favor the new laws, while 15 percent oppose, compared to only 22 percent of Republicans who are in favor, against 72 who oppose.
The Gallup poll survey of 1,021 adults was conducted on Jan. 17 and has a 4 percentage point margin of error and represents about the percentage of people who voted for Obama.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/278145-gallup-majority-supports-obamas-gun-proposals
Ted, the reason that such poll results occur, is due to the Left’s fear-mongering propaganda. They have convinced the “low-information voters” that AR-15s are machine guns, and that they are responsible for most of the gun crimes. Both of those assumptions are totally false.
Hammers, clubs, feet, and hands each kill more people annually than ALL TYPES of rifles, not just the so-called “assault weapons”.
Snuss: are you kidding? “The left’s fear-mongering propaganda?” Have you read anything coming from the NRA lately? Get on their e-mail list and then we’ll talk about propaganda. I’m on it and it’s gone beyond the absurd in recent years.
I’m one of the gun-owning Dems that don’t get talked about a lot. I support the 2nd amendment, I own guns and I enjoy shooting. I’m more than confident that I’d have no problem using a gun to defend myself or my family. I have no problems with concealed carry but probably wouldn’t do so myself.
However, I don’t think we need assault weapons owned by anyone other than law enforcement or the military. And, I think we need to close the gunshow and private sale loophole so that proper background checks can be done on those who wish to buy a gun. The NRA long ago ceased to be about protecting 2nd Amendment rights; they exist now to do the bidding of the gun makers and to stoke fear into the populace, which drives up gun sales.
There are plenty of Dems like me; more than you might assume. And, having talked to some of my right-wing friends, there are plenty of GOPers who support reasonable gun control measures that might actually make the country a touch safer. It’s easy to play to the extreme sides in this issue; it takes more nuance to navigate the middle.
Speaking of “low-information voters”, monkey just proved my point.
So-called “assault weapons LOOK like military-issue weapons, but perform EXACTLY THE SAME as any CIVILIAN semi-automatic weapon, of the types that have been produced for over a century.
They are no more powerful than any other gun of the same caliber, and the .223 round used by the AR-15 is significantly less powerful than most, if not all, deer rifles.
If you want to talk about REASONABLE gun control, the Feds should fix the problems with the national registry database, so gun dealers can more easily check out their customers, even at gun shows.
But, the so-called “assault weapons ban” did nothing to reduce crime rates, and the new Obamunist version will be equally as ineffective, other than further infringing the rights of the law-abiding citizen.
Leftist ‘knee-jerk” legislation usually causes more problems than it fixes, as the New Your cops who can only carry SEVEN ROUNDS of ammo in their service weapons, to avoid breaking their new anti-gun law, will tell you.
Wow, nice lead, snuss. Did you even read my comment? Did I make a comment about the AR-15? No. However, clearly, civilians don’t need true “assault” weapons that are fully automatic (e.g., M-16, AK-47, etc). Do you care to address that or are you just hiding behind insults such as “low-information voter?” Have you ever fired weapons? Do you have any gun experience beyond your research on the ‘Net? I’m doubting it.
Like a true wingnut, you seem incable of having a sane conversation w/o spewing wingnut talking points. Go back and re-read my comment again.
I have not only fired weapons, I’ve built some from kits. They range from .22 cal rifles to .45 cal muzzle-loaders, and various other weapons.
BTW, you stated” I don’t think we need assault weapons owned by anyone other than law enforcement or the military “.
So, do you accept the Liberals’ definition of “assault weapon”, meaning something that looks like a military weapon, or the description meaning a fully-automatic military weapon?
I accept the restrictions on Class III weapons (machine guns), but the so-called “assault weapons ban” is nothing except political theater, fomented by fear-mongering Leftists. It failed to reduce crime rates, but gave the Looney Left a warm (but false) feeling of accomplishment