Obama Lie: "I won't try to take your guns away from you." Yeah, right.

Wise Americans feared that a Candidate Obama turned president would attempt to take away many of our liberties.

Obama has felt free to take any liberty not expressly forbidden to him by the general public.  Don’t confuse that with the constitution, because Obama obviously doesn’t care about that.  He thinks the constitution is merely a document of “negative liberties.”

Any time citizens feared Obama would attempt to grab a specific liberty or right, he has merely lied about his intentions to placate the weak minded among us.

During the financial and automotive meltdown, Obama said he had no desire to be in the banking or automotive business.  Yet, the federal government headed by Obama owns banks and auto makers, and dictates salaries, bonuses, and more.  In the health care “debate” he claimed that illegal aliens would not be paid for, yet again he lied (thank you, Joe Wilson).  He said there would be “not one thin dime” of new taxes on 95% of Americans under his administration.  That promise/lie went the way of the do-do.  It is living in the same place as the pledge not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per  year.

So when Obama waves his hand in an attempt to push a Jedi mind trick on us saying he has no intention of taking our guns away from us, based upon his track record of dishonesty, why should we believe him?  Simple.  We shouldn’t. Despite what he says, his record on the 2nd Amendment shows that he has no desire whatsoever to let you keep your firearms.  Let’s look at some examples.

• Opposed bill in Illinois that asserted the right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions, quantifying that self-defense requirements would be viewed to take precedence over local ordinances against handgun possession.
• Double-speak: “I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right.”
• Obama lied about endorsing Illinois handgun ban
  • “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”
  • Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:
    • 35. Do you support state legislation to:
    • a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
    • b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
    • c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
• Elitist Obama revealed how he truly feels about mainstream America when he said “It’s not surprising they get bitter.  They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
• More Obama double-speak:
  • Q: You said recently, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
  • A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.
• 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month (if you’re not a criminal, why should it matter if you buy more than one gun per month?)
• Surprisingly, Obama votes in favor of law allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons.  Why?
  • Obama said “I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done–and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms.“
  • However, another reason for Obama’s uncharacteristic vote soon emerged.  Obama was battling with his GOP opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police.
• Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
  • Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
  • Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
  • Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
• Voted AGAINST prohibiting civil liability actions against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others.  ANOTHER BACK DOOR WAY OF CONTROLLING GUNS.

When Obama said “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns,” he forgot to add “right now.”  Obama and his henchmen like Eric Holder, along with the anti-constitution and liberty liberals in congress and the senate will continue to do all they can to EVENTUALLY take our guns away from us.  But in the meantime they will do all they can to make gun ownership and possession by law-abiding citizens as expensive and inconvenient as possible.  One of the proposals being floated by anti-gun advocates is to make all ammunition and powder for reloading such that the powder will break down and become useless after a certain period, one to two years.  There are several other such proposals outlined below.

Do you oppose ownership of guns by private citizens?  If you do, what do you think stands between you and criminals or an oppressive government?  The government and legal system have paralyzed the police to the point that they CAN’T protect us.  When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.  As for governments, remember that throughout history those who have pounded their guns and swords into plowshares have plowed for those who did not.

If you don’t fight for your constitutional rights and freedoms, who will?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=34932 Ammunition Control by the Obama Administration

by A.W.R. Hawkins

Posted 12/22/2009 ET

Without bullets, a gun is no more useful as a weapon than a rock or a hammer. Although an unloaded gun could be thrown at an intruder or a tyrant, the lack of ammunition ultimately reduces it to the status of a glorified paperweight.

And this is not lost on the nearly 100 million gun owners in America, a number of which are asking if the current shortage of bullets is the result of backdoor efforts at gun control (via ammunition control) by the Obama Administration?

The quick answer to that question is — not exactly.

In other words, the reasons behind the current shortage, as the well as the price increases on what little ammunition is available, are both governmental and nongovernmental in nature.

As for the government’s role, a prime example arose in March 2009 when the Department of Defense (DOD) suddenly changed its policy about selling old brass from spent military rounds to Georgia Arms, an ammunition manufacturer located in Winston, Georgia.

According to Curtis Shipley, President of Georgia Arms, on March 12, 2009, the DOD, which had been a longstanding source of cheap brass for the ammo manufacturer, decided that brass could only be purchased from the military if it was “mutilated.” In other words, it would not longer be possible to buy empty brass casings that Georgia Arms could then clean, quickly reload, and sell to the public at a low price.

When I spoke to Shipley, who had been accustomed to buying spent brass in increments of fifteen tons from the DOD, he said, “This portended higher prices because it required us to either mutilate perfectly good brass when we picked it up from a military base or have a DOD employee travel with us (and the brass) to verify that we did indeed mutilate it at a another site.”

Once mutilated, Georgia Arms would have had to melt the brass down, re-alloy it (casings for each caliber require a specific alloy blend that can sustain the pressures for that caliber), and then re-shape it into the proper casing for whichever caliber they were manufacturing. Said Shipley: “Such a process would add approximately $90 to the cost of one thousand rounds of 9mm ammunition right off the bat.”

Fortunately, the public outcry against this DOD maneuver was so great that the order to mutilate all brass was rescinded after just five days. However, those five days were enough to contribute to another problem the government had been causing since November 2008 – namely, fear of an all out Obama-led assault on guns and ammo.

Speaking to this fear, Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, said: “You can go to gun stores all over the country and many of them will have a picture of President Obama hanging on the wall. However, when you get up close to the picture and look at the caption on the bottom, instead of saying ‘President’ it says ‘Gun Salesman of the Year.’”

Pratt said gun owners are rightly leery of this administration. Obama supports the new California law that will require every semi-automatic pistol sold in that state to come equipped with a special firing mechanism that makes a distinctive mark – a “fingerprint” – on every bullet casing it fires. And currently, some Democrats in the House of Representatives want to take that law a step further and enact legislation that would force ammunition companies to place serial numbers on every shell casing they manufacture.

Let me just say that if you think ammunition is scarce and expensive now, wait till manufacturers have to put a serial number on every casing and maintain records containing the names, addresses, etc., of everyone who purchases such casings.

No wonder Pratt said: “None of this is about safety. Rather, it’s about finding ways to create an ammo and gun registry that will allow the government to finally figure out which son got daddy’s gun when daddy passed away.”

And while the government is doing its part to make ammunition harder to find, either directly, via episodes like the one between Georgia Arms and the DOD, or indirectly, by scaring citizens to death through anti-gun posturing that has caused a run on ammo sales, the market plays a role as well. With demand outpacing supply the market sustains higher prices for ammo under Obama than it was able to sustain for that same ammo during the presidency of a pro-gun politician like George W. Bush.

Add to this the fact that we’re now sending the majority of the lead from our recycled car batteries to China, instead of selling that lead to ammunition manufacturers who can cheaply reclaim it to make affordable bullets for their casings, and it’s no wonder consumers are scrambling to find ammunition and then paying a fortune for it when they do.

Did I fail to mention that millions upon millions of rounds of ammunition are currently being diverted to our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere right now as well? While this is understandable, it further highlights the fact that we gun owners are in a tight spot, as far as getting ammunition for our guns is concerned.

With all these variables affecting the availability of ammunition, this would be a great time to join a group like Gun Owners of America. By so doing we would assure the politicians in D.C. that if they use their offices to further deny us bullets for our guns, we will use the voting booth to deny them the very offices they now hold.

HUMAN EVENTS columnist A.W.R. Hawkins holds a Ph.D. in U.S. Military History from Texas Tech University. He will be a Visiting Fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal during the summer of 2010.

[Via http://texan2driver.wordpress.com]