Ammo For Sale

« « God Squad Ads | Home | Doin’ the butt » »

Here it comes

Barack The Outlaw Josey Wales Obama finally decided he’d stop pandering to gun owners since calling them bitter and went ahead and started advocating more gun laws. Actually, you wouldn’t know that from the headline that reads Laws alone can’t stop violence: Obama. But if you read the article, you’ll note he says:

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. [Or] The Tiahart (sic) Amendment [requiring destruction of gun-purchase records.] Here’s an example of something common-sense: The ATF [federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] should be able to share info with local communities about where guns are coming from, tracing guns that are used in criminal activity. It’s been blocked consistently in Congress. 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.

So, he misrepresents the gun show loophole (McCain has too, btw). And he and the Sun Times lie about what the Tiahrt Amendment does.

18 Responses to “Here it comes”

  1. Sean Braisted Says:

    How did he misrepresent the gun show loophole? Simply by calling it a loophole?

  2. SayUncle Says:

    yes. there isn’t one. sales at gun shows are subject to the exact same federal regulations as sales not at gun shows.

  3. DirtCrashr Says:

    How much “tighter” and “effective” can computerized background checking become than it already is? Is he gonna include stuff from Grade School that’s on “Your Permanent Record” ??
    He wants it like California, and all he means is more restrictive – that’s saying “No” to every request and purchase, except for the politically well-connected.
    The Big Lie is the whole “gun show loophole” nonsense – there isn’t one.

  4. LissaKay Says:

    I wonder if it ever occurred to Mr. BO that maybe if the laws already on the books were, you know, enforced or something? And maybe if people that broke said laws were actually punished, instead of being let off with a slap on the wrist or otherwise coddled, as those ever lovin’ lefty liberals are wont to do, that maybe that might have an effect on the illegal use of guns?

  5. Ron W Says:

    The so-called “gunshow loophole” is that the tyrannical ruling elites want to regulate any private sales that may occur at gunshows and make the sponsor/organizer of the shows be responsible that the te private sales individuals are background checked or else face stiff penalties. Such an onnerous impostion of responsibilty would likely have the effect of greatly curtailing or even shutting down gunshows…which is probably the desired effect of these anti-RBKA like Obama, Clinton and McCain who was supported such legislation with his buddy Joe Lieberman.

  6. # 9 Says:

    Barack “Chimichanga” Obama has made me rethink my stern opposition to Hillary Clinton. Not that she is looking any better, he is just looking much, much, worse.

  7. Cactus Jack Says:

    LissaKay Says:

    April 25th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
    I wonder if it ever occurred to Mr. BO that maybe if the laws already on the books were, you know, enforced or something? And maybe if people that broke said laws were actually punished, instead of being let off with a slap on the wrist or otherwise coddled, as those ever lovin lefty liberals are wont to do, that maybe that might have an effect on the illegal use of guns?

    It might have occured to them but apparently they believe it’s easier to criminalize honest people than to punish REAL criminals.

  8. Cactus Jack Says:

    # 9 Says:

    April 25th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
    Barack Chimichanga Obama has made me rethink my stern opposition to Hillary Clinton. Not that she is looking any better, he is just looking much, much, worse.

    Yeah, it’s pretty bad when someone looks WORSE than the Hildebeest.

  9. Lyle Says:

    Tighten up our laws? Like, as Uncle says, make crime more illegaler. Outlaw crime.

    Seriously, when will the Left admit that laws only affect the behavior of the law-abidding?

    As for outlawing private sales; I doublt it would have much affect on gun shows, really. So all sellers must go through a licensed dealer– big woof. Most sales already go through licensed dealers. It would simply lead to the next phase of prattling from the Left that, “Closing that loophole wasn’t enough to reduce crime, so we have take it a step further” etc., etc., ad infinitum.

    The tactic is to divide and conquer all gun ownership, and private sales is just one more target. It is for that reason that attempts to restrict anything any further must be stopped, and met with proposals to lift existing restrictions.

    Example: I can legally own any number of pistols in my home state of Washington. I live right on the border with Idaho, and I have businesses and real estate in Idaho. All the local gun dealers are on the Idaho side. I cannot legally buy a pistol from an Idaho dealer and take it into Washington, even though there are no laws preventing me from owning a pistol in Washington and even though I must pass the same background check no matter where I buy a pistol. Even from a gun-hating perspective, I challenge anyone to explain to me why it makes any sense to force me to have the Idaho dealer transfer the pistol to a Washington dealer if I want to buy it. What remote form of logic exists there?

  10. Kirk Parker Says:

    Lyle,

    The logic is easy: anything that makes it harder to buy guns, regardless of any other effect it may have, is worth doing. Deducing the worrisome principles behind such a point is left as an exercise for the reader. 🙁

  11. Mark Buehner Says:

    Its also important to note the number of gun crimes traced back to gun shows is infintesimal. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed with weapons stolen or taken from a friend or family member.

    There are two ways to lower gun violence, right to carry laws and STIFF penalties for committing a crime using a firearm. If you stick a gun in somebodys face robbing them, you should get automatic 20 years, no parole. If you shoot someone in the commission of a crime you should get life. That would deter gun crime. But Obama and his crowd will never go for it, because this isnt really about lowering crime at all. Its about power.

  12. Matt Says:

    Mark,

    Why are gun crimes special? If I stab or beat you to death, do I get a smaller sentence because I didn’t use a gun? How about stiff sentences PERIOD for anyone who commits an act of violence against another? By supporting enhanced sentencing for gun crimes only, you are helping the anti-rights crowd to marginalize and isolate us.

  13. Xrlq Says:

    When has McCain misrepresented anything? Simply calling something a loophole is not a misrepresentation, just a statement of opinion which others may not share. One man’s bug is another’s feature.

  14. DMN Says:

    Matt

    That is the exact argument i have against special sentences for hate crimes. just because you hate that person, for whatever reason. Should be no different than for someone you do not hate. Killing someone because they are black, should be no different than killing someone for no reason at all. Life without the possibility of parole.

    And child rapists and murderers should be raped by men named bubba for the rest of their life. Death is too quick and easy for this scum of the earth.

  15. retro Says:

    When has McCain misrepresented anything?

    Well how about McCain-Feingold? That’s a pretty blatant misrepresentation of the First Amendment.

  16. straightarrrow Says:

    “But Obama and his crowd will never go for it, because this isnt really about lowering crime at all. Its about power.”

    and the only way to that power is to ensure that he has the support of those criminal elements.

    xrlq, that was just silly. One man’s bug may be another man’s feature, but one man’s lie does deserve equal consideration to another’s true statement.

    There is no gunshow loophole. Ergo it is not a feature, nor a bug. It is nonexistent. To prattle on about it is dishonest. To defend that prattling is equally dishonest when you know the prattle is false.

    And you know it is false.

  17. Xrlq Says:

    Straightarrow, arguing that the “gun show loophole” does not exist is beyond silly. Of course it exists, the only question being whether it should or should not be considered a “loophole.” If you think all private sales should be exempt from background checks, even if conducted at a gun show, then it stands to reason that you will not consider this aspect of the law a loophole. But if you think that all gun show sales should be conducted under the same rules, you will.

    Calling someone a liar for calling the “gun show loophole” a loophole makes about as much sense as calling every Obama supporter a liar for saying Obama doesn’t suck when we all know he really does.

  18. Brad Says:

    The effort to close the so-called “gun-show loophole” is nothing more than an effort to ban ALL private transfers of firearms and force all legal sales to go through an FFL dealer with all the attendant fees and paperwork. Why the anti-gun crusaders bother with this, other than to hurt the people of the gun with another turn of the screw, escapes me. California for example has banned all non-dealer sales of firearms for more than 15 years, and in addition has a 10 day waiting period for all legal sales (even for curio rifles!) and it hasn’t made a damn bit of difference in criminal violence or suicides.