The Love Chronicles, The Gun Ban Rhetoric

Posted: January 26, 2013 in News and politics
Tags: , , , ,

The Gun Ban Rhetoric

I am really tired of seeing all the bunk about President Obama and his supposed ban on all guns through some kind of end run using the United Nations. First off, I am a gun owner and do not ever intend to give up my right to have and own them. I think every citizen should be allowed to carry, laws similar to Idaho are appropriate. If you do not have a criminal record, by law in Idaho, your license to carry must be in your hands no later than, I believe 60 days after application. It has been a few months since I looked it up so It might be 90, but one or the other. My point is, the state believes in every citizen’s right to own and carry a firearm as long as they are law-abiding citizens and I believe in this premise also. These chain emails and postings also claim he is planning to bypass congress to pass laws banning all guns. Not true, could not do so even if he wanted, which he does not. He has to have a majority of both houses and there is no such majority, nor will there ever be in the foreseeable future.
The President actually has said that he believes in the 2nd Amendment and that it does guaranty the right to bear arms. The next question and answer I pasted from

Q: Does the Obama administration intend to “force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for U.S. citizens” through a United Nations treaty?
A: No. The administration plans to negotiate a treaty to regulate the international export and import of weapons. It says that it won’t support any treaty that regulates the domestic transfer or ownership of weapons, or that infringes on the Second Amendment.

Back in April, when discussing the upcoming conference, Thomas Countryman, assistant secretary for the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferations, said that the U.S. wouldn’t support a treaty that covers the domestic transfer of weapons, or goes against the Second Amendment:

This is what he said: Let me be clear once more on the question of domestic transfers. The Treaty must not touch on domestic transfers or ownership. The United States has received widespread international support for this oft-repeated position that only international transfers would come within the purview of this Treaty. We will not support outcomes that would in any way infringe on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. We have received, in fact, letters from United States Senators opposing any Treaty restricting the Second Amendment. This has been the position of the Executive Branch since 2009, and it remains our position today. We will not support or agree to any Treaty that would do so. We believe that the international community can draft a Treaty on international arms transfers that would both increase international security and still protect sovereign rights of nations. That is the Treaty that the United States will pursue in July and for which we expect there will be widespread support. There is not even a framework in place for this treaty; it is only in the discussion stage at this point.

What President Obama has said is that he does not believe we need a machine gun, assault rifle, or banana style magazines to defend our homes or hunt down a deer. So we need to quit quoting all of these crackpot chain emails and posting inaccurate posters and statements of supposed fact based on a bucket full of bullshit. It demeans us and weakens us for the real fight. If you think you should be able to have full auto, or a huge magazine of ammo that basically explodes into dozens of pieces and tears up flesh, then you need to educate yourself on what has actually been said so that when you start your argument for what it is you really want, you don’t sound like some uneducated hayseed who has no real idea of what it is you are fighting for. So if you really care about gun control and want to affect change, quit posting crap and stay on point. If you are just looking to bash the President and you don’t really care about the facts, then this article is not for you and I would not waste my time trying to have a discussion. You’re the same group of citizens who actually fired a science teacher in my hometown back in the day for teaching that the world was round. Yep, a fact, check it out. Oh wait; facts are not important to you. Well I hope we can win our fight to have the weapons of our choice. I myself can defend my home just fine. I do not need assault weapons to do it. I am not so gullible as to believe that I can ward off government forces if I decide to revolt when they can blow my ass away from distances a half a continent away with ease. But I respect your right to fight for them, just fight for them with the facts and do not diminish your chances by spewing lies or repeating them as the truth! I know this will not make me popular, but I am telling you truths. If the truth makes me unpopular, than I can bear it, my real friends will at least understand the need to argue from strength with the real facts. If you do not agree with the President, by all means resist him with your vote, writings, phone calls and emails, but calling him a terrorist, insisting his religion is other than it is, that he is an illegal is ludicrous, and makes those of us who bash him in this matter ludicrous as well! And maybe, just maybe, hiding a more sinister reason for this behavior!

  1. lwk2431 says:

    You wrote:

    “What President Obama has said is that he does not believe we need a machine gun, assault rifle, or banana style magazines to defend our homes or hunt down a deer.”

    FYI, real machine guns and real assault rifles have been strictly regulated under the National Firearms Act since 1934. The guns under consideration for a new “Assault Weapons Ban” only look like some of these guns. They are cosmetially “challenged.”

    If you would check out this:

    Assault Rifles

    It explains how Josh Sugarmann planned to deceive Americans into believing these guns were real machine guns, although they most certainly are not.

    Some people use guns built on the AR-15 platform for hunting. That is enormously more popular today than in 1994 when the first ban passed. But that is not the main reason people buy these guns. Obama’s “hunt down deer” is irrelevant. They are great for home defense, especially with a 30 round magazine.

    In fact, an AR-15 carbine (short rifle) with a collapsing buttstock is nearly perfect for home defense. I give my reasons for that statement here:

    Who Needs An Assault Rifle?

    An AR-15 with a 30 round clip is perfect for my wife to use for home defense when I am travelling even though she has arthritis in her hands now. She can’t pull back the slide on my Glock any more, but she can perfectly use the AR-15.

    A rational defense on why people can use these best for defense dispels the myths and illusions the gun-banners are trying to spread.


    • John Love says:

      I have no problem at all with your reasons or the facts you supplied. My main gripe is to just deal from truths and not to be forwarding and posting garbage which just makes it harder for you and I to get our points across. My wife can still fire my 357 mag, but hurts her wrists. I am getting her a SW 32 long revolver for quick response, and she has a coach 12 gauge side by side loaded with buck shot which she handles just fine in an emergency at home. I would be afraid of collateral damage across the street with an AR15 is why I would not go that way, but that is a preference not a critique.

  2. James Mahon says:

    And the truth shall set you free. Nice research Bro….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s