Sunday, June 8, 2008

NRA Smears Obama's Stance on Gun Ownership

Barack Obama is trying to walk a fine line between protecting the right to bear arms guaranteed under the Second Amendment and clamping down on more than 30,000 deaths from firearms that happen every year in the United States.

However, the National Rifle Association is against any limitations on gun rights, including banning or controlling any kinds of ammunition, even armor piercing bullets that hunters "desperately" need to kill deer. So in their "fair and balanced" imitation of Faux News, the NRA today created a webpage to cry wolf about Obama.

Don't fall for the nonsense.

The only thing one needs to understand about this NRA campaign is that they are not protecting the gun rights of the average hunter or law abiding gun owner, they are protecting gun companies sales to gang bangers and criminals who account for a large percentage of their revenue.

Gun companies get a new sale every time a gun owner replaces a stolen weapon, which is far more often than one would think. Over 600,000 firearms are stolen every year in the U.S. Instead of working to make their guns more traceable and the streets safer, the gun companies want to protect their lucrative indirect and repeat sales to gang members and criminals.

While the NRA claims they are protecting the rights of hunters and citizens to bear arms, they are also protecting the right of criminals to have easy access to automatic weapons and high kill rate ammunition so they can keep our emergency rooms full of 5 year old kids caught in the cross fire of turf wars, and urban shoot outs over "respect". Hunters and law abiding citizens have no need for those types of high powered weapons and ammunition.

And, as revealed by ABC News, the NRA (working with the Bush Administration) is also protecting gun and ammunition sales to the Mexican drug cartels, who, according to U.S. law enforcement statistics, get more than 90% of their guns from the U.S. 3,500 people have been murdered by the Mexican drug cartels in the last 15 months, 2,000 of them law enforcement officials.

The number of U.S. deaths from gun violence are almost 10 times the numbers in Mexico. According to a 2007 New York Times article, 29,569 Americans died from gun violence in 2004, that's 81 deaths every day. An additional 176 people are injured daily from gun violence (64,389 in 2004). The CDC has updated their site to include statistics from 2005 (the latest year full statistics are available) and gun deaths rose that year to 30,694.

By comparison, 4,092 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq during the last five years at the time of this article. Approximately 150,000 Americans have been killed at home from gun violence during the same period.

So who is the NRA protecting, U.S. citizens or gun company sales?

The laws Barack Obama supports that the NRA are vehemently against include sensible acts like:


  • Mandatory waiting periods to purchase a gun

  • Requiring citizens to actually register their firearms

  • Mandatory micro stamping of guns to aid tracing weapons

  • Banning inexpensive handguns that make it easier for criminals to acquire

  • Limit gun purchases to one gun a month

  • Require training for gun owners

  • Restrict gun ownership to citizens 21 and older

  • Eliminate right to carry concealed weapons

  • Ban gun shops from operating within 5 miles of a school

  • Ban resale of police firearms which include high powered assault weapons

  • Ban high capacity ammunition magazines that are often used by gang members in drive by shootings and not needed to kill a deer



Those do not sound the like rantings of a crazy person hell bent on denying citizens the right to bear arms. They sound like well thought out solutions to curb gun deaths. Training citizens to safely handle firearms, restricting access to guns and assault ammunition by criminals, registering guns and making them more traceable, those are all the acts of common sense, despite what the NRA wants citizens to believe.

They proposals do, however, affect the pocket books of gun manufacturers, so the NRA, acting as the large bully lobbyist group they have become, throw a public fit and get headlines. Unfortunately most Americans do not go beyond the headlines and find out the facts to a story, much less a political candidate.

We've experienced 8 years of high crimes and misdemeanors. We can't change this country if we turn a blind eye to the corruption and mind controlling ways of the powers that be.

This is just the beginning. It's a long way to November, so keep your eyes, ears, and minds open to avoid the lies and false allegations that will continue to come Obama's way. Then make sure to discuss them with your friends and family so they become and, just as importantly, stay informed.


Digg!

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow... such ignorance coupled with such arrogance.

Gun laws are as effective as drug laws. Criminals ignore them. Gun laws that deny guns to the honest have ZERO effect on criminals - ZERO.

The difference is that innocent victims are disarmed and the criminal predators stay armed.

You are thinking about this as a child thinks, grow up.

Anonymous said...

Ridiculous indeed.
Obama is extremely dangerous to gun rights. Don't let him fool you. This author starts out with lying statistics. Those 30,000 gun deaths a year include 20,000 suicides, the vast majority of which would be committed by other means if guns were not available.

Obama lies when he says he supports the Second Amendment. The only thing he really claims to support is the twisted interpretation of the Second Amendment which protects the right of state governments to arm their militias if they want to. Not the right of the people to arm themselves if the government should neglect to.

The NRA doesn't want guns registered or more traceable because that will dramatically increase the temptation for the government to confiscate everyones guns. Their trick is to tell people they only want to register, not confiscate, and then they work to get them confiscated.

Emergency rooms full of 5 year old kids? Get serious. The number of children killed in crossfire is minuscule. Guns save lives in self-defense vastly more often than children are caught in crossfire. Most "children" killed by gangs are 17 year old thugs battling over drug turf.

If Obama really supports gun rights then why on earth does he want to ban gun shops within five miles of a school? It could only be because he thinks guns are evil and doesn't want kids to be exposed to them. In fact a lot of the controls he supports are meant primarily to increase the expense and hassle of gun ownership so that fewer children will be exposed to guns and therefore political opposition to the ban of all guns will lessen over time.

The ban on concealed carry is a perfect example of this. The legalization of concealed carry in many states has proven that letting people carry guns does NOT result in increased gun violence. So what justification can there be for preventing women and elderly people from having an equal fighting chance? The big problem with concealed carry is that it will increase political support for guns in cities in addition to the traditionally strong support in rural areas. Over time people will realize that the guy next door with a carry permit is more likely to save their life than to take it.

Don't let Obama fool you. He wants your hunting rifle.

Anonymous said...

Watch out, here come the gun nuts. "You can't take away my right to hunt with a machine gun, it's protected in the Constitution!!"

Actually, if the inbred NRA members would read the Constitution they would know that it gives the right to bear arms to defend themselves. Context. Machine guns, assault weapons, automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets, those are not needed to hunt or to defend your home. Anyone who thinks banning them is stepping on their rights needs to be committed.

The old school white's will rear their ugly heads during this election. It will be a very nasty, racist time that will be embarrassing to educated people. The inbred NRA members will be proud, on the other hand, to rip a black man. Go back to your KKK cave, retards.

Anonymous said...

As a police officer I can tell you that gun laws have nothing to do with crime control. Criminals ignore laws (after all, theft is a crime, yet I still investigate that crime all the time).

Gun laws do not make me or the citizens I work for any safer. Quite the opposite: gun laws actually endanger law-abiding citizens.

Gun laws are about oppression. Governments control, restrict, and ban weapons so they can exercise unchecked power. It worked for Stalin, Hitler, Ida Amin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc.

Anonymous said...

After the Civil war, laws were passed to ban blacks from buying guns other than Winchesters because Winchesters were relatively expensive and thus blacks wouldn't be able to afford to defend themselves.

Sometimes blacks would have to band together with what guns they had in order to defend their neighborhood from KKK gangs.

The KKK gangs would often include the local sheriff. In those days the sheriffs probably rarely wore armor, but today they usually do, hence the need for armor piercing bullets if such things should become a problem in the future.

If you think gun rights advocates are just a bunch of racists then it is you who are the bigot.

You're right, the Second Amendment isn't about hunting, it's about the security of a free state (state as in a political entity such as a US state or a country). We cant permit the possession of personal nukes, so the question is what can we permit? There has been very little substantive debate on this topic. For example it may seem crazy to let people possess machine guns, but in Switzerland they send a machine gun home with every young man. You might call that a mistake but you can't reasonably call that crazy when you find out their murder rate is half of the US rate.

Jim said...

Could you please give me a source for the statement about emergency rooms being full of 5 year olds caught in the cross fire of gang shootings? I must have missed that story on the nightly news-not aware of any emergency rooms "full of" 5 year old gunshot victims.

I'm also interested in how you draw the conclusion that CCW by lawabiding citizens contributes to gun violence. Once again, I must have missed that story.

Obviously, I don't expect any response since these things don't exist in the real world, just in your very fertile imagination.

Carl in Chicago said...

Indeed.

Take ignorance, couple it with arrogance, and fuel it with bigotry. And this article is the result.

With all due respect to the author, you have no idea what you are writing about. Your characterization of the NRA is wholly baseless.

Lesbian of Color said...

The Second Amendment doesn't protect the "right" to own dangerous, high capacity ,semi-automatic, bullet proof vest piercing, cop killing, assault machine guns any more than the First Amendment protects RightWing Racist Sexist anti-Gay Hate Speech.

Matt said...

Lesbian of Color,

Actually, the first amendment does protect hate speech...that's the point. You know, government can't decide who can express what opinion and all that? Even the term "hate speech" doesn't exist under any existing 1st amendment jurisprudence.

Also, any bullet fired from a rifle and a good number of handguns can penetrate the body armor that police wear, because police intentionally don't where flak jackets.

On the original post, more than half those 30,000 gun deaths are suicides, according to the CDC, and therefore seem to represent a different social problem than widespread gun theft and criminality.


And finally, the ignorance of this post is really illustrated in how the poster thinks that 1. the NRA protects automatic weapons (it doesn't, and it hasn't been a political issue since 1934) and 2. that as a result of the NRA's non-existent advocacy, criminals are likely to use automatic weapons in this country, which is so patently ridiculous its absurd. If the poster knew anything about the legal status of automatic weapons in this country, or about gun laws and guns in general, this post would take on a very different tone.

Thirdpower said...

It's only "reasonable".

* Mandatory waiting periods to purchase a gun

That have never been shown to reduce fun violence.


* Requiring citizens to actually register their firearms

So the Gov't knows where they are when they decide to ban them (CA, NY, NJ, DC, Chicago, Etc.)


* Mandatory micro stamping of guns to aid tracing weapons

A process that has been found to be useless in solving crimes.


* Banning inexpensive handguns that make it easier for criminals to acquire

So only wealthy people can own firearms? They never commit crimes, do they?


* Limit gun purchases to one gun a month

So you can end collecting.


* Require training for gun owners

So only the Gov't can decide to make training so onerous, no-one, including police, could pass.


* Restrict gun ownership to citizens 21 and older

So you can vote, join the military, drive, etc. , but not protect your family?


* Eliminate right to carry concealed weapons

So restrict people who don't commit crimes?


* Ban gun shops from operating within 5 miles of a school

Why, if they can't own guns anyway? Are "gun shops" dangerous?


* Ban resale of police firearms which include high powered assault weapons

Why? What is a "high powered assault weapon"? Can you provide a definition?


* Ban high capacity ammunition magazines that are often used by gang members in drive by shootings and not needed to kill a deer

You mean like in the Henry Varmint express? They're "often used by gang members"? How many rounds are actually fired?

rosi said...

The only thing one needs to understand about this NRA campaign is that they are not protecting the gun rights of the average hunter or law abiding gun owner, they are protecting gun companies sales to gang bangers and criminals who account for a large percentage of their revenue.

Gun companies get a new sale every time a gun owner replaces a stolen weapon, which is far more often than one would think. Over 600,000 firearms are stolen every year in the U.S.

According to the source you linked to...

Approximately 37,500 gun sales, including 17,800 handgun sales, are completed every day in the United States.

.... at that rate, 600,000 firearms represents 16 days of sales. Not exactly a huge proportion of a year's production. Nor would replacement sales account for a significant amount of a company's annual revenue. Furthermore, 600,000 firearms is less than 1% of the total number of firearms in the US (the usual estimate is around 65,000,000).

Ignorance and being bad at math can lead one to extremely erroneous conclusions.

Bruce said...

It will be a very nasty, racist time that will be embarrassing to educated people. The inbred NRA members will be proud, on the other hand, to rip a black man. Go back to your KKK cave, retards.

Wow...look in the mirror much?

rosi said...

Whoops, my mistake- 65,000,000 is the usual estimate for the number of handguns in the US, not all firearms.

Anonymous said...

"The old school white's will rear their ugly heads during this election. It will be a very nasty, racist time that will be embarrassing to educated people. The inbred NRA members will be proud, on the other hand, to rip a black man. Go back to your KKK cave, retards."

Wait. Which side is "angry and bitter"? Funny how all of the urban professional educated conservative and libertarian people I know tend to hold the apparently feckless opinion that reasonably intelligent and educated people come to different conclusions about political issues.

Gosh. I didn't realize that I my parents are related and I don't really have three diplomas on the wall. Thanks Obama and supporters, for helping me find out important things I never even knew about myself.

Confederate Yankee said...

It's quite impressive to find so much arrogance and ignorance in such a concise package.

I don't have all day to document them so I'll simply debunk the first.

The blogger wrote: "However, the National Rifle Association is against any limitations on gun rights, including banning or controlling any kinds of ammunition, even armor piercing bullets that hunters "desperately" need to kill deer."

The most common rifle cartridges for most medium and large game hunting (including deer) in America are ALMOST WITHOUT EXCEPTION "armor piercing."

That is because most police body armor is only designed to be effective against slow to medium velocity HANDGUN bullets.

Rifle bullets designed to kill deer, elk, boar, bear, and other large game, regardless of bullet design and intent, will penetrate body armor without any effort at all.

So will most short-action rifle ammunition designed for varmint hunting, target shooting, and general utility use (NOTE: contrary to popular fantasy, "assault rifles" use cartridges in this lightest, weakest family of centerfire ammunition, and are "high powered" by any valid, objective standard compared to other centerfire rifles).

You simply don't know what you're talking about, which is painfully obvious to your any of your educated readers.

Brian A said...

As long as the blogger has no problem gutting the 2nd amendment, we may as well do the same to the 1st. There's so many misstatements out there, that anything that can be done to protect the "truth" would be worth the hassle, including:

# Mandatory waiting periods blog

# Requiring citizens to actually register their blogs

# Mandatory stamping of posts to identify authors

# Banning free blogging services

# Limit blog posts to one a month

# Require training for bloggers

# Restrict blogging to citizens 21 and older

# Eliminate right to blog with a laptop

# Ban computers from operating within 5 miles of a school

# Ban resale of corporate computers which include high powered servers

Don Meaker said...

Keep in mind that guns are 14th century technology. Repeating guns are 16th century technology. An effective ban on guns requires a ban on technology more advanced than the 14th technology.

And a ban on speed, writing, printing, books, reading to insure that noone learned anything more advanced.

Add in the effective murder of 15/16ths of the worlds population, the most which can be supported with that level of technology.

No engines, as the drilling technologies could be used for gun barrels. No chemistry, or fertilizer, as the technology could be used for propellants.

No high strength materials, as they could be used for gun parts.

Also out the window would be most medicines, made with precise tolerances and quality control techniques developed from the firearms industry.

Soandso said...

This is another of many red herring issues that have been raised in order to get us to not do what is in our best interest as a nation; that being to elect who is the best candidate for our next President. I believe I am smart enough to avoid an attempt by the government to confiscate any of my weapons, as I believe most of you would be as well. So here we are with our nation in economic crisis, and arguing about gun ownership laws. Do you seriously foresee gun collection squads coming out to round up all the guns? And if so, wouldn't you have reported them stolen long before the bastards showed up? Come on people, I'm no genius here...

Anonymous said...

i would love to find out where you got the 30,000 people killed each year by gun info. not that many people die in car accidents cancer or drug over doses, suicides each year so maybe you need to get you facts before speaking when you dont have the facts right as a homicide investigator i know you 30,000 deaths by firearms is about 25,000 to many so get your facts before flapping your lips mr blogger

Dean Dooley said...

Here you go, asshole:

"FACT:In 2005 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were 30,694 gun deaths in the U.S."

http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm