Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Gun Rights in the Age of Obama

From Bob Owens at Pajamas Media: T
here is something truly disturbing about the kind of politician generated in the state of Illinois, and particularly those who call Chicago home. No, I’m not talking about the widespread corruption that sends the elected officials of this state to prison with distressing regularity. I’m talking about the scathing distrust officials have for their citizens — and for the citizens of the rest of the United States.

At this moment, Barack Obama, our neophyte trillion-dollar president, includes as one of his stated policy goals the reinstatement of the laughably ineffective Assault Weapons Ban amid other policies that are not only offensive to gun owners, but also threaten the lives of police officers.

This, of course, is the same Barack Obama who sat on the board of the Joyce Foundation as they cynically attempted to corrupt Second Amendment scholarship, buying law reviews and establishing foundations with the express goal of duping the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. But Obama’s distrust of those bitter, clingy Americans you call friends and family is hardly unique, and seems to be something deeply ingrained in Illinois Democrats.

An Illinois state representative by the name of Kenneth Dunkin is introducing an even more draconian proposal than Obama’s policies, attempting to make it all but impossible for Illinois citizens to own firearms. It’s an insidious scheme which would force citizens to carry at least $1 million in insurance to own a gun. The plan is being all but ignored in the media, the same media that would be verbally ripping Dunkin’s proposed legislation apart if he proposed that journalists have a million-dollar libel insurance policy before writing a story.

The kicker? There do not seem to be companies offering the kind of insurance Dunkin would require — something Dunkin presumably knew as he wrote his bill, since he is on the Insurance Committee of the Illinois General Assembly.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

This just demonstrates that BHO and his guys really do understand the purpose of the 2nd Ammendment and are bound and determined to abolish/usurp it ASAP.
Just a survival strategy from their perspective.

Anonymous said...

And so it begins:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

So, if I have enough money for a lower or two then I'm ok on building the rifle later - correct? I'm in Texas and kind of clueless on this. I'm just a pistol guy.

Anonymous said...

^^^ to our anonymous Texas pistolero, yeah, you should be alright. An AR lower is the only serialized part of an AR and by definition, according to the ATF is the "gun part". So theoretically, if there were to be some sort of ban, and the powers that be tracked your serial numbers either from the actual AR's themselves or from the paperwork when you bought the lowers to a date of manufacture, you should be okay.

Now, granted, some legislator could write the bill in such a way as to mandate that gunowners have to prove having a complete gun by the date the AWB started, or that gun would be up for confiscation.

But, how do you, as a gunowner, prove that you had a complete gun by such and such a date?

I dunno....???

Windy Wilson said...

"So, if I have enough money for a lower or two then I'm ok on building the rifle later - correct? "
Unless they change the law somehow later.

"But, how do you, as a gun owner, prove that you had a complete gun by such and such a date?"

I dunno either, but that's one option for how they change the law, and that will be what the gun owner will have to do until some poor schlump's case grinds its way up to the SCotUS while it is still willing to recognize the impossibility of proving a negative.