Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
    Loading
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Obama: Buy Guns

    Posted by Jonathan on December 8th, 2008 (All posts by )

    Yes, I know, the real headline is: Obama: Don’t stock up on guns . This means that the fact that people are buying guns has caught Obama’s attention and matters enough to him for him to express disapproval. Reasonable people might infer that he will support legislative and regulatory efforts to restrict gun ownership if it becomes politically expedient to do so.

     

    16 Responses to “Obama: Buy Guns”

    1. Chris Says:

      Obama has said directly to people when he was a U of Chicago professor that ” I don’t think people should be able to own guns”. Why is this even questioned by anyone? We know what he really feels….what may have said for political convenience since is irrelevent.

      But I am from Kansas originally, so I know all of my guns are in fact safe with my dad even if there is a supreme court shift and someone gets a gun ban law passed just so it can rapidly bubble up the the sc and set new precedent. There is no way in hell Kansas will vote to ban private firearms ownership and there is literally an informal network for dealing with your firearms already in place there from long before Obama if it ever did come to that.

    2. Lexington Green Says:

      Buy ammo.

      They think they can neutralize gun ownership by imposing restrictions, regulation, taxes, etc. on ammunition manufacturers.

      Speaking as a lawyer, when the president tells you: Don’t exercise a constitutional right, the correct response is: F*ck you.

    3. Jonathan Says:

      Before, I think, 1986 you could only buy ammo in stores. You couldn’t just order it by mail or phone and have it delivered. You also had to provide ID, and the sales clerk would record your name and other identifying info in a record book. I suspect that one of the Democrats’ initial moves will be to try to restore something like the old ammo-buying legal regime. They may also try to restrict purchases of some types of ammo with the idea of eventually extending the restrictions to all ammo. Perhaps also “arsenal licenses” and similar regulatory harassment of people who want to keep more than small amounts of ammo at home. “Microstamping” rules and similar nonsense are also possible. Many of these initiatives won’t stick, but a few of them probably will, and over time they will accumulate to make life difficult for anyone who wants to use his guns for more than hanging on the wall. At least that seems likely to be the plan.

    4. Brian Says:

      One of the many issues he attempted to be on all sides of. Fortunately, on this one we aren’t resigned to feebly stand by and wait to see where he really shakes out.

    5. C Smith Says:

      It’s about two years and three months until the 100th anniversary of the adoption of the M1911.
      I hope to see the various manufacturers all give him match-grade weapons and copious ammo, delivering them with much pomp, circumstance, and a big marksmanship competition.
      But they’ll likely not be asking for a bailout…

    6. Methinks Says:

      Didn’t the Supreme Court rule on the right to bear arms recently? Wasn’t the ruling that the gun ban in Washington D.C. unconstitutional? I know presidents don’t think the constitution applies to them but…

    7. Methinks Says:

      “Obama has said directly to people when he was a U of Chicago professor that ” I don’t think people should be able to own guns”.

      Yeah, well I don’t think Obama should be president, so I guess I should be able to kick him out of office on my whim.

    8. Shannon Love Says:

      I think stealth-prohibition will be the strategy from here on. 2nd Amendment opponents will publicly state that citizens have a right to guns for self-protection but then will support “reasonable” restrictions that will have the cumulative effect of denying gun ownership to a majority of the population.

    9. pst314 Says:

      Shannon, you are spot on target here, although certainly Obama will seek to appoint Supreme Court justices who he hopes will destroy the Second Amendment (and other protections that are anathema to progressives.)

    10. Jonathan Says:

      Yes, stealth prohibition. Stealth everything. I suspect that the “reasonable restrictions” route will fail in the courts, thanks in part to Heller and pending cases (Chicago), but some combo of harassment and working-to-rule by the Justice Dept. and regulatory agencies, import bans by executive order, gun-use restrictions on public land and so forth seems likely.

    11. Methinks Says:

      Jonathan, do you really think gun-use restrictions on public land and the like will stand constitutional challenge? I’m hoping not.

    12. Jonathan Says:

      By public land I meant national forests, BLM land and parks. AFAIK these areas have long been heavily regulated WRT gun use, with the restrictiveness of the regulations varying between different administrations.

    13. Reid Says:

      I have to disagree with everyone who believes Obama and the Democrats are going to tighten gun laws. Obama is probably like most leftists and believes only the state and body guards for VIP’s should bear arms. But he is a savvy political chameleon who understands that gun control is a big time political loser for the Democrats. Bill Clinton was explicit in blaming the NRA for the Democrats loss of control in 1994. This is the reason gun control was not mentioned in the last election.

      Don’t worry about gun control. Worry about the economy being socialized because that is happening.

    14. Jonathan Says:

      Reid, you may be right about Obama and guns. I hope so. However, sometimes leaders do things that don’t seem to make sense. I thought gun control was politically dead after the 1992 LA riots. Yet Democratic pols supported increased restrictions on gun ownership even after their 1994 elections debacle and even after their narrow loss in the 2000 presidential race. Maybe gun control is politically dead. I wouldn’t count on it, and I think that citizens who are buying up guns and ammo are being prudent.

      I agree that the socialization of the economy is worth worrying about too, as are other issues. The fact we worry about particular issues doesn’t mean we aren’t worried about the rest.

    15. Chris Says:

      “..Didn’t the Supreme Court rule on the right to bear arms recently? Wasn’t the ruling that the gun ban in Washington D.C. unconstitutional? I know presidents don’t think the constitution applies to them but…..”

      Hence the importance of the next supreme court appointee…that decision was ridiculously 5 to 4. 5 to friggin’ 4!!! How do any of those 4 judges look in the mirror at themselves and see anything put a partisan political hack. How can any so called constitutional expert NOT think that private citizens owning weapons is a protected right?

      If Obama appoints a justice, there will likely be a legal challenge stirred up immediately in Vermont or Oregon with the express purpose of getting it up to the SCOTUS to reverse this and other previous decisions.

      I can honestly say that those judges who decide against the right to bear arms deserve to die for selling out their country for a political ideal incongruent with the american ideal…

    16. Obloodyhell Says:

      Too late to fix it. Too early to start the hangings.