Obama on gun control
Yesterday, the President had an opinion piece in the Arizona Daily Star and he says the things that I never thought he believed about gun control for example;
Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land. In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that’s handed from generation to generation. Hunting and shooting are part of our national heritage. And, in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners – it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.
The fact is, almost all gun owners in America are highly responsible. They’re our friends and neighbors. They buy their guns legally and use them safely, whether for hunting or target shooting, collection or protection. And that’s something that gun-safety advocates need to accept. Likewise, advocates for gun owners should accept the awful reality that gun violence affects Americans everywhere, whether on the streets of Chicago or at a supermarket in Tucson.
I know that every time we try to talk about guns, it can reinforce stark divides. People shout at one another, which makes it impossible to listen. We mire ourselves in stalemate, which makes it impossible to get to where we need to go as a country.
He advocates that legal gun owners should be able to purchase guns, while unqualified people should not – something I advocate as well. He goes on that States need to provide more complete and accurate information for the national database and enforcing the laws that are already on the books. I can’t disagree – it’s what we’ve all been saying all along.
But the he goes on to say that that’s a good place to start the conversation. As far as I’m concerned that’s good place to stop the conversation. The ponderous restrictions on gun owners is enough already. When everyone does their part in a timely manner, people like Loughner won’t be able to get guns and all of our problems will be solved.
But the president continues;
Most gun-control advocates know that most gun owners are responsible citizens. Most gun owners know that the word “commonsense” isn’t a code word for “confiscation.” And none of us should be willing to remain passive in the face of violence or resigned to watching helplessly as another rampage unfolds on television.
Yeah, most gun control advocates don’t give a tiny rat’s ass who is responsible and who is not. Does England or Australia differentiate between responsible and irresponsible citizens when it comes to gun ownership? Not a whit.
We gun owners already know that gun control is going to be a slow process, and pretty words about what we can all agree upon can’t hide the facts on their intentions.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
All those quotes were missing were the pauses where he winked and nodded to those that know he’s just attempting to appease the “independents”.
It’s a sucker’s deal.
The NRA lent its reputation to several big-name Dems in the last cycle; and the POTUS is making a play for its support now.
Did his administration actively support gun owners? Or just bow to the ruling of the courts? Washington, D.C.’s handling of gun rights may have some insight.
What DaveO said.
The watch continues.
Here are some of the “common sense gun laws” as seen by the Brady organization:
Defeat the “dangerous” and “outrageous” Thune Amendment that “would have allowed the carrying of loaded, concealed firearms outside a person’s home state, even by persons legally barred from possessing guns in the state where the carrying occurs. It would have allowed the weaker concealed carry laws of one state to nullify the restrictions on gun carrying of other states.”
H.R. 308 and Lautenberg’s S. 32 “to prohibit civilian possession of these military style magazines.”
Legislation to ban all military-style semi-automatic assault weapons along with high capacity ammunition magazines.
Requiring new handguns equipped with technology that allows police to match bullet casings found at a crime scene to the individual handgun that fired them (microstamping).
Nope, no code words there.
Here’s what Bobo and his minions think of gun control
http://www.shotgunnews.com/knox/
I think you’ll get the point when you read it. He’s talking out both sides of his ass, again.
Old Trooper – Actually, as a gun toting, Libertarian Infantryman, my concept of the 2nd Amendment is that the civilians get to have the same stuff as the military, less the chemicals and nucs. When the Constitution was written in 1787, there was no differentiation between “military” and “civilian” weapons, so why start now? If I can’t have the same M4 on my side of the door as the guy in the uniform on the other side, how can I be expected to be an efficient check and balance against his inherent power?
Sorry if the sarcasm in the previous post didn’t make it through the ether of the Internet. What I was trying to say is that BHO is full of it by telling us that there is no alternate meaning in “common sense gun laws.”
I love this line of crap:
“People shout at one another, which makes it impossible to listen.”
Yeah, Obama. The people shouting are on the left. Wisconsin. San Francisco. Chicago. New York.
Listen up, Mr. Community Organizer. Don’t paint both sides of the debate as though they are the same. You fraud.
Bobo; I wasn’t talking about you. Sorry for the confusion. I was talking about the fraud in chief, Obama, who I call Bobo.
There should be NO gun laws whatsoever. You can own what you can afford, and you should be able to carry anywhere.
Anytime folks start to talk about “gun control” I ask them to do a simple experiment. Take the same arguments they are putting forth regarding the 2nd Amendment, and replace the latter with the 1st amendment, and see how it sounds.
Should we be required to undergo a background check in order to write a letter to the editor? Should we have to obtain a license in order to speak in public, or at a town meeting? Should we have to pass some sort of proficiency test in order to publish on a blog, or operate our own newspaper or broadsheet?
The “Bill of Rights” is NOT a list of those rights granted to us by the Constitution. It is a warning to Congress that these rights, and others not listed, are inalienable, and belong to the people REGARDLESS of whether the Federal Government, or ANY government exists. The Government is admonished to keep their damned hands OFF of those rights, and to mind their own business.
Punish folks for the consequences of their decisions, of their actions. Hold them to a high standard of personal responsibility. Onerous and prophylactic laws are an affront to any free man, and are repulsive to those who enjoy the blessings of liberty.
V/R
The only gun control should be the ability to put lead on target.
AW1 Tim,
You’re holding back. Just relax and let it all out. Stop repressing yourself.
In reality “commonsense” is a codeword for “confiscation” and that is exactly what the gun control pussies want…end of the CONVERSATION.
Restrictions on magazine capacity…sorry, that doesn’t wash, not do any other restrictions beyond those already on the Federal books.
Bottom line: ENFORCE THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS…hold dipshits like Loughner’s parents, Dupnik (Pima County Sheriff) and those douche bag counselors at Pima CC who did NOTHING…reported NOTHING even though Loughner was clearly a nut-bar who should have been committed and treated, and, thus, a record established.
Finally, anyone who undergoes voluntary or involuntary commitment to a mental institution, who is on some type of drugs for long term treatment of mental illness…there should be a national level database that is linked to the Instant Background Check system. If they are serious about reducing the chances of a mentally ill person purchasing firearms, then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
Convicted felons pop up on the Instant Background Check system…it works.
Arguments in regard to the second amendment notwithstanding, but are you sure that opinion piece was written by Obama? When I first started reading it, it sounded like a debate piece written for a sixth grade civics class. Obama is supposedly the smartest man in the United States, but in this article he comes off sounding like a smug middle schooler.
#12 Spigot,
So vets with PTSD who want to protect their home or put some meat on the table should be disarmed? OCD? Anxiety attacks?
Why make victims out of law-abiding citizens who happened to leave service not quite the same?
Did I mention PTSD or people who voluntarily seek help for a problem like PTSD or depression as the result of a death in the family, divorce, job loss, bankruptcy?
Again: people voluntarily or involuntarily COMMITTED to a mental health institution…
I’ve got some faith that the mental health community can determine who, under what circumstances and treatment regime may or may not fall under the prohibitions against firearms purchase or possession.
If you can think of a better way…let us know.
Spigot,
You wrote in entry #12: “…who is on some type of drugs for long term treatment of mental illness…” Psychiatry is not the answer.
One answer is in essence ‘s/he who can pay, can buy.’ If s/he goes looney tunes and shoots up Wal-mart, then another citizen can make the shot(s) to stop the massacre.
By offering up the exception of mental illness, a condition that whose legal definition is set by precedent, and by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM for short). The DSM can be, and is being, rewritten. Back around Viet Nam days, the DSM said homosexuality is a mental disorder. Now it doesn’t, because the authors wanted to be PC.
Should the DSM authors decide gun ownership is a mental illness – well there you have it: justification to take away the guns from all owners, without breaching the 2d Amendment.
In some things, and this is one of them, you have to take bad with the good.
As for your comment on enforcing existing laws: well if we did that, why would we need politicians to write new ones and lawyers to argue over ’em? That’s taking bread out of their mouths and beemers back into showrooms! But I agree with you.
I don’t argue gun control or 2nd amendment with the loony, gun grabbing lefties. Instead, I like to give a demonstration and ’em hold an 8×11.5 sheet of paper up in front themselves at arms length. Tell them that sheet of paper is the law or protection order or whatever legal instrument they chose it to be. It’s huge fun seeing the look in their eyes when you poke a ball point pen through it and ask why their sheet of law or whatever didn’t stop that ball point from coming through.
*hehe*
Thanks Streetsweeper you just saved me from another headache.
We’re talking about our rights. The stance of the gun owner should be:
No. I will not compromise. I will not back down. I will not flex–not one inch, not ever.
Any attempt by the government to limit access to handheld weapons should always be opposed… because they will take inches if they must, until they have gained miles. Never has there been ANY society made safer by restricting the rights of the people to possess handheld weapons.
Do you really think that a national mental health database is a good idea? That doctors should completley forgo Dr./Client priveledge and release your information? How long, and what would the process be, to get expunged from those records, or, once mentally ill, can you never get better? What a great way to control those who disagree–you can’t disarm them legally, have them “evaluated.”
The President is no friend of the gun owner. The only right answer he should give is that Gun Ownership is about freedom, and Gun Control is about control.
On second thought, I will gladly turn in all of my guns to the government, as soon as the police and all federal agencies do likewise.
Yeah CONTROL OUR RIGHT to keep and bare arms, while the ATF supplies Mexican drug cartels with weapons. Goggle PROJECT GUNWALKER.
Haven’t people learned from watching individuals such ad Hitler. First he registeredthe guns and stated: “Our streets will be safer, our police better unforced and we will go down on history as example for the rest of the world”. Then he stated to mass murder people. Damn people wake up -sell the coffee. Any country who control self defense become a dictatorship. CONTROL POWER MONEY. Then SERFDOM….look it up. We the people who don’t have money are slaves to the corporation.
Here’s the thing, though: If the states can force Doctors to break the Doctor/Patient privilege, and report your info/name to some national data base, then what is to stop them from demanding the same sort of compliance from your priest?
How long before they can demand to know what you “confessed” to?
No, we’ve too many laws and regulations already. As I said, there ought to be NO gun laws whatsoever. Our government is far too powerful as it stands, and our freedoms and liberties have already been grossly diminished. We need to roll those onerous laws and regulations back, and return the Federal Government to a small thing, doing ONLY those things specifically permitted to it by the Constitution.
Given the fact that whenever this man talks, he has been shown to be lying, I don’t really care what he says he believes, particularly on this issue.
He is a demonstrated leftist and socialist, and not one in history that I can come up with was in favor of the masses having firearms, because they might resist the socialization of their society. His philosophy as shown just does not jibe with his believing in any of our civil rights if they stand in the way of his creating a leftist, socialist utopia.