Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: President Admits Stealth Attack on Rights, Media Yawns

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,611

    President Admits Stealth Attack on Rights, Media Yawns

    Permission to reprint or post this article in its entirety is hereby granted provided this credit and link is included. Text is available at www.FirearmsCoalition.org.

    Obama Admits Stealth Attack on Rights, Media Yawns

    Submitted by cbaus on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 07:00. by Jeff Knox

    "I just want you to know that we are working on it," Barack Obama told Sarah Brady regarding gun control. "We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar," Obama said according to Brady.

    This interesting bit of news was reported in an April 11 Washington Post Lifestyle section story about Obama's gun control and regulatory policy wonk Steve Croley. Toward the end of the article the writer, Jason Horowitz, mentioned a March 30 meeting between Jim and Sarah Brady and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney during which the President "dropped in." He then quotes Sarah Brady relating how President Obama gave his personal assurance that he and his administration were working hard on a gun control agenda. Brady reported that Obama then told them about advancing the agenda "under the radar."

    What is truly startling about this story is the way it has been totally ignored by the rest of the media. Compare the media's current silence with what happened during the 2000 presidential campaign when then NRA Vice-President (and GOP activist) Kayne Robinson told a group of rights supporters in California that electing Bush would mean "we'll have a president where we work out of their office, unbelievably friendly relations." The media went into a feeding frenzy over this comment to such a degree that Bush distanced himself from the NRA, publicly endorsed reinstatement of the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban and withdrew overt support for the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The story was carried repeatedly on virtually every major media outlet in the country – and it was not based on anything Bush himself had said. Here the leader of a prominent organization is claiming that the President himself had avowed active support for a highly controversial agenda and admitted that he was violating his own promise of transparency in pursuit of that agenda. Yet the media ignores it.

    Even the folks at the Brady Bunch are not spreading the news about the stunning reassurances from the President. There is nothing on their web site discussing, or even mentioning Obama's chat with Jim and Sarah. Just the fact that a groups leaders were cordially welcomed at the White House, much less given a private, informal meeting with the President, would generally be something to crow about, but on their web site Brady's focus is to "Tell President Obama to Ban Assault Clips!" (Assault Clips?)

    The "Gunwalker" scandal, the push for registration of long-guns through mandatory reporting of multiple sales, and stricter interpretation of various gun laws are all part of the Obama administrations ongoing "under the radar" attack on rights. The recent ATF "study" on the importability of shotguns is one of the most obvious components of this multi-faceted plot against our rights and it is slipping by with little resistance.
    As I have previously reported, the ATF "study" examines current laws and practices regarding shotgun imports and concludes that standards need tightening. Like a bank robber wearing a brightly colored hat to distract attention from identifying features, the ATF "study" prominently puts forward a list of features that distinguish non-sporting shotguns from sporting shotguns. As intended, the media, and the rights community, have almost universally focused on this list of features to the exclusion of other critical information in the "study," most importantly a statement that the real test they intend to employ to determine importability is one of actual use, not features. If an importer cannot demonstrate that a particular shotgun style is popular for use in sports such as bird hunting and trap and skeet shooting, the gun will not be allowed into the country. No more will importers be able to replace "non-sporting" features like folding stocks, and pistol-grips with more traditional, sporting style options to pass ATF "sporting purpose" test. The report specifically disqualifies the very popular and growing sports of 3-Gun and tactical shotgun competitions based on the circuitous logic that since ATF rifle and handgun importability studies of several years ago did not recognized these sports, it would be disruptive for them to be recognized now.

    Suggestions that import bans could be bypassed by manufacturing the guns in the USA fail to recognize that there are two different places in federal law where almost identical "sporting purpose" language is used: the GCA bases importability on "sporting purpose" and the NFA exempts shotguns from the definition of Destructive Devices based on "sporting purpose." Once a particular style of shotgun is declared to be "non-sporting" for importation purposes, it is a natural, short step to declaring it "non-sporting" for NFA purposes – which would mean it, and any domestic shotgun of similar design, would automatically be classified as a Destructive Device and subject to all of the restrictions of the NFA.

    As blatant as Mr. Obama's "under the radar" assault on the Second Amendment is, it seems that the major media, and even the powerful NRA, have their radars turned off.

    Permission to reprint or post this article in its entirety is hereby granted provided this credit and link is included. Text is available at www.FirearmsCoalition.org. To receive The Firearms Coalition’s bi-monthly newsletter, The Knox Hard Corps Report, write to PO Box 3313, Manassas, VA20108.
    Copyright 2010 Neal Knox Associates – The most trusted name in the rights movement.

    BTW - 3 gun Kim pointed this out to us - thanks.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    17
    The media's agenda is about as pro 2nd Amendment as it is pro American (not very)!

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Sounds to me like Brady was trying to help Obama keep it under the Radar?

    Now whose radar the voting U.S. public? All those who defended him as not being anti-gun because he hasn't done anything yet? Although his statements and voting record prior to being elected Prez was horrible.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  4. #4
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Sounds to me like Brady was trying to help Obama keep it under the Radar?

    Now whose radar the voting U.S. public? All those who defended him as not being anti-gun because he hasn't done anything yet? Although his statements and voting record prior to being elected Prez was horrible.

    It is true that He has done nothing yet, that I am know of.

    I have been looking around for the Washington Post article, and have been unable to find it. Does anyone have a link to the article referenced as being in the 'Lifestyle' section of the Washington Post? I am not stating that the linked article is not true, but I am questioning where they got their information.

    I mean heck, the OT article is three weeks old. A statement like that would have spread pretty quick in these areas of the online world, such as OC.com.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    It is true that He has done nothing yet, that I am know of.

    I have been looking around for the Washington Post article, and have been unable to find it. Does anyone have a link to the article referenced as being in the 'Lifestyle' section of the Washington Post? I am not stating that the linked article is not true, but I am questioning where they got their information.

    I mean heck, the OT article is three weeks old. A statement like that would have spread pretty quick in these areas of the online world, such as OC.com.
    ask and you shall recieve:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/todays...16_epaper.html

    As far as under the radar things that have been done or attempted

    1. destroying used military brass instead of continuing to surplus it to reloaders. Yes I understand this was stopped quickly by congressmen, but it was still a real attempt by his administration.

    2. ATF putting out new illegal regulations requiring the reporting of, and if I remember correctly registration of, long arms.

    3. Gunrunner, I consider that to be an attack since it contributed significantly to the statistics his administration, through Hillary, used to call for more gun control.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    It's not just a river in Egypt.

    This is a demonstrably anti-gun president. The minimality of his specific actions is more a function of the opposition he would face than it is restraint on his part.

    Trying to work against the right under the radar is not a surprise considering that opposition, the willingness of this president to walk all over rights to move his agenda forward, and his propensity to try to hide his left-leanings from the general public.

    I don't expect to change the mind of those who will not see. I say this for the benefit of those who are thinking over the situation, wondering whether this president will take further action against the RKBA.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •