AWB 2009

The Libocrats will defend Mr. Obama against the Conservatives’ fears of the proposed Assault Weapons Ban, saying that every time a Democrat takes office, we get scared that guns will be taken away. I would say that it is a well-founded fear, as this is exactly what happened the last time we had a Democrat in the White House, and it is part of Obama’s Agenda of Change. The reason the ’94 ban was allowed to expire in 2004 is that it very simply did not do any good.

So, the question is WHY? Why does Mr. Obama want to take steps towards further disarming The People? The actual text on Obama’s website reads:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

This is the way I read it:

Address Gun Generate Escalated Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, in purcuit of their totalitarianistic goals, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information for the purpose of individual privacy, as well as the protection of law enforcement agencies, and give police officers across the nation the tools Gestapo strong-arm tactics they need in the guise to allegedly solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade, but in effect, only violate the privacy of law-abiding citizens. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense unconstitutional measures that respect pay lip service to the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals those otherwise law-abiding citizens that would oppose an oppressive government – as our Founding Fathers intended. They support closing the imaginary gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof for the government only. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent because they are either too stupid to see that it had no positive effects the first time around, or they have another agenda.

If I sound nutty, please try to keep an open mind and humor me for just a moment – even if you will leave my blog shaking your head at what a wack-job I am. If you followed my links, and/or did a little Googling on your own, or know a little history from the last two decades, you will see that the AWB whose duration was from 1994-2004 had NO positive effect on crime rates. This is why it was allowed to expire ten years after its inception. This history teaches us that the law was useless to its purpose of reducing violent crime.

Mr. Obama is not stupid, nor is Mr. Biden. They are smart enough men to know that the previous law did nothing towards its stated purpose. Why then, would they want to push for a permanent version of the same law? It is obviously not for the reasons stated, therefore it has to be for other reasons. What are those reasons? That’s the million-dollar question. What hidden agenda do the newly elected have in mind that is supported by the 2008 Assault Weapons Ban?

Any answer to that question explains exactly what the Conservatives are so afraid of.

2 thoughts on “AWB 2009

  1. I am going to go absolutely bat-shit jihad if a new AWB gets passed. Seriously: they pass another AWB, and it’s f-ing war.

  2. Anonymous,

    Easy there, tiger! Although I admire your enthusiasm, this is something upon which I fear we must tread lightly. Oleg Volk (http://olegvolk.livejournal.com/490741.html?mode=reply) quoted John Ross from Unintended Consequences saying,

    “The end result, which we want to avoid, is the concentration camp. The gulag. The gas chamber. The
    Spanish Inquisition. All of those things. If you are in a death camp, no one would fault you for resisting.
    But when you’re being herded towards the gas chamber, naked and seventy pounds below your healthy
    weight, it’s too late. You have no chance. On the other hand, no one would support you if you started an
    armed rebellion because the government posts speed limits on open roads and arrests people for speeding.
    So when was it not too late, but also not too early?”

    So, when indeed will it be not to late but also not to early? There lies a wide, gray line, that I fear we must each decide for ourselves as individuals.

    That, in and of itself, poses a particular danger. There will be some who act out inappropriately and too early, and they will make the rest of us look nuts. It may prove that rebellion will be unnecessary. That is what I’m hoping for. If it is necessary, those that act out first will take away credibility to the real rebellion.

    We have the potential for some deeply frightening times ahead of us.

    God be with us!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *