03 April 2013

Baghdad Jay: "Obama Is Not Going To Take Away Your Guns Or Infringe Upon The Second Amendment Except When He Bans Certain Guns And Ammunition! Stay Calm!"



M2RB: Eurythmics




Would I lie to you?
Would I lie to you honey?
Now would I say something that
wasn't true?
I'm asking you sugar
Would I lie to you?




Circus Carney…


“As you know, and as everyone who is an expert on this issue can attest, there is not a single thing that the President has proposed that would take a single firearm away from a single law-abiding citizen in America,” Carney told reporters, according to a transcript provided by the White House. “This President supports our Second Amendment rights. The proposals he put forward — like banning military-style assault weapons, like limiting high-capacity ammunition clips — these are proposals that in no way infringe upon Second Amendment rights...”


Got that? President Obama has not proposed a single thing that will take a single firearm away from a single law-abiding citizen in America…except for proposals like banning ‘military-style assault weapons and limiting high-capacity ammunition clips…none of which would infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of any law-abiding citizen.   **eyeroll**


Old & Busted: “If you like your plan, you can keep it…unless you cannot because it is one of those like major medical that is banned under Obamacare or is too expensive.” 


New Hotness: “If you like your gun, you can keep it…you might not be able to get any ammunition for it, but, hey!, no one is infringing in the slightest on your Second Amendment rights! President Obama fully supports those rights and would NEVER take away or infringe upon them. Anyone, who believes otherwise, is just a conspiracy theorist. Plus, banning ‘military-style assault weapons’ doesn’t take a gun away from anyone, but if your current one breaks, sucks to be you!”
 

To quote SWalker:


 “o_O” …. eL3vEnTy!1!111!!!111


Next up in Baghdad Jay’s asininity:
  

"...and, again, would not take any firearm away from any law enforcement — law-abiding citizen..."


Phew! For a minute there, I thought that Obama might disarm my PMS-ing, emotional, “never know when [they] might go off” sisters in LE.

He added:

“When it comes to straw purchases — I mean, again, this is about enforcing the law. If you have individuals who are routinely buying weapons as straw purchasers on behalf of criminals who cannot buy weapons themselves because of their criminal record, that’s a violation of the law, and we ought to take action to ensure that the law is enforced. That seems like a very common-sense, conservative principle to me…”


Got that? We need NEW gun control laws to enforce the ones that are already on the books even though:

1. Gun crime prosecutions under the Obama administration have decreased by 45% from the Bush administration; and,

2. Only 71 of the 71,000 people, who lied on their background checks in 2009, were prosecuted by the Obama administration; and,

3. In 2010, 72,142 were denied the right to buy a gun. 33,907 (47%) of those were denied because they lied about a felony indictment or conviction on their background check; yet, only 44 were prosecuted and 13 convicted of lying; and,

4. Even though people, who have been adjudicated mentally ill, are not allowed to own firearms under Federal law, 23 states and the District of Columbia had submitted fewer than 100 mental health records to the federal database, 17 states had submitted fewer than 10 mental health records, and 4 states had not submitted any in 2012; and

5. As Vice-President Joe Biden said:


“We don’t have time to prosecute everybody who lies on background checks.”

6. Straw purchases are already illegal. Such laws did not prevent Columbine because they only apply retroactively, naturally.

Sooooo, let’s pass MORE gun control laws for the government NOT to enforce!


Without LibLogic®, life would be utterly boring…


Carry on, Carney...


“...[A]s does the idea that the background check system that already exists should be improved so that loopholes are closed that make sure that it does what it was intended to do, and that is ensure that those with criminal records and others who by law should not be allowed to, or are not allowed to purchase weapons cannot circumvent the law because of the loopholes in the system.”


This loophole argument is such BS.

1. 93% of guns used in gun-related crime ARE OBTAINED ILLEGALLY, i.e., through theft or bought on the street. DOES ANYONE BELIEVE THAT BACKGROUND CHECKS WOULD HAVE ANY EFFECT ON PREVENTING CRIMINALS FROM OBTAINING THESE GUNS?


Bueller, Bueller?


2. There is no “gun show loophole,” per se. Most sales at gun shows are accompanied by a background check because authorised dealers MUST conduct them.


3. You CANNOT, legally, purchase a gun online without a background check. If you want to purchase a gun online, the sale will be done pursuant to a background check and you will have to pick up the weapon at a local, authorised gun dealer. Obviously, if Criminal A wants to sell a gun to Criminal B online, NO LAW IS GOING TO PREVENT THAT. NONE. By definition, criminals do NOT obey laws.


4. What the Feds really want is to mandate background checks for private, along with dealer sales, which is akin to demanding you determine whether a buyer has liability insurance before you sell him your car. They want to prohibit the transfer of guns from family members through gifts, legacies, loans, etc. Theoretically, leaving your weapon at the home of your friend could result in the prosecution of the latter under the kinds of laws the Dems are demanding. Finally, they want a national registry. Well, we all know how popular that is and where it leads.

5. Nothing that Democrats have proposed will lower crime if past is prologue. We have more than 10,000 gun control laws on the books in this country and enforcement is a joke. In addition to enforcement, the criminal justice system handles violation with great apathy and leniency.

Who remembers Hadiya Pendleton, the girl who was murdered in Chicago not long after performing at Obama’s second inauguration? One of her killers, Michael Ward, pleaded guilty to AGGRAVATED UNLAWFUL USE OF A FIREARM – A CLASS IV FELONY – in January, 2012. He was sentenced to two years probation…WHICH HE VIOLATED THREE TIMES IN LESS THAN ONE YEAR.

While NONE of the proposals that Democrats have made would have prevented Hadiya Pendleton’s murder BECAUSE THE GUN WAS OBTAINED – WAIT FOR IT – ILLEGALLY, she might very well be alive today had Michael Ward been sentenced to jail or prison rather than probation or had his probation revoked after the first or second or third violation. 

Anyhoo, Ronald Reagan said, “Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.” Nevertheless, I’m sticking with ignorant.


Jay, shut up, you ignorant slvt!




at

No comments:

Post a Comment