Double talk on guns
Fox News reports that President Obama has called for “strengthening” gun laws, but you tell me what he really means when he says;
“I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms,” Obama said. “But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets of our cities.”
He called for stepped-up background checks for people who want to purchase guns and said he would also seek a national consensus on combating violence.
We have the right to bear arms, but only the arms that the government will allow us to have? And I’m not sure how they can say “stepped up background checks” and have anything meaningful in mind. No amount of “stepped up” checks would have prevented James Holmes from buying the guns he bought. The only thing that would’ve prevented his purchases would prevent anyone else from buying the same guns since Holmes had no black marks on his background before his night at the theater.
So Harry Reid shied away from a discussion in the Senate this year on gun control because he knows what would happen to the Democrats in the Senate in their respective States.
But Jay Carney told the press how to interpret Obama’s remarks;
“He believes that we can enhance the enforcement of existing laws by making it more difficult for those who should not have weapons under existing laws … to obtain weapons,” Carney said.
He noted that Obama supports the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban which expired in 2004, but said he wants to focus on strengthening background checks “given the stalemate in Congress.”
Well, he can do that without Congress, but he’ll blame Congress for not “strengthening” background checks. He has enough laws in effect to enforce an effective control of commercial weapons, but if he does that, there will be no more crises on which he can depend to argue for more laws to restrict the millions of us who own guns and don’t kill other people.
Romney apparently agrees with me that there are enough laws on the books already. For today, anyway.
The president, however, suggested Wednesday that it “shouldn’t be controversial” to make the case that a “mentally unbalanced” person shouldn’t be able to get a gun so easily.
I’m guessing that by “mentally unbalanced” he means anyone who wants to buy what he’d call an assault weapon.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plbdmfugMfI …yup pretty much hard to argue the second amendment if you educate yourself.
“He believes that we can enhance the enforcement of existing laws by making it more difficult for those who should not have weapons under existing laws … to obtain weapons,” Carney said.
So does this mean the administration is now going to start answering questions about Fast and Furious?
Ummmm…”AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers”…soldiers of what army, if I may be so bold? ‘Cause I don’t remember ANY American military force issuing AK-47s.
A good friend of mine, Bubba at whatbubbaknows.com said it best then he asked, “What is the most important part of the 2nd amendment?” … The answer? … A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed ‘PERIOD’
The dictionary describes ‘period’ as: used by a speaker or writer to indicate that a decision is irrevocable or that a point is no longer discussable.
I am shocked SHOCKED to hear that democrats want more control
First reaction to the quote “But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets of our cities.” was, So, is he planning to take command of the army of Russia perhaps? Was that what he meant about being more flexible after the election??
I’m with uncivilized – when have our soldiers ever been issued AK47’s?
Another numnuts-in-chief foopah? Kinda like Marine Corpse.
We have plenty of gun control laws on the books. Not one of them prevents criminals from getting their hands on weapons.
Personally, I prefer the mango and bag of apples defense, per this video:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/otilia-martins-80-thwarts-robbery-mangoes_n_1703306.html?source=rss&ref=weird-news
There is also Harry Cook in Leicesterhire, UK, who stopped thieves from stealing his potted plants with a gardening trowel.
Let’s look at this logically: What law could be written that would have made it illegal for a neuroscience doctorate candidate to buy weapons?
“Any person having received a speeding ticket is forbidden from buying a weapon.”
“Any person having received money from the Federal Government is forbidden from puchasing a weapon.”
“Any person that buys red hair spray shall be forbidden from purchasing firearms.”
“Any person originitating in California is forbidden from purchasing firearms.”
“All comic book movie fans are prevented from buying guns.”
Nothing is being said about Holmes’ politics, which leads me to believe he was a left winger. Perhaps that is the key to new legislation?
The fact is that the only law that could be written that would have prevented him from buying a weapon, would have to prohibit law-abiding citizens from buying a firearm. It was already illegal for him to have a weapon in the theater, and THAT is why no one shot back at him. Law-abiding citizens did NOT have guns in that theater.
As a Police Officer in Calif, we were the few people who were allowed to eval a person and have them put on a mental hold for 72 hours (CA 5150 W&I Code). In many, but not all cases, I could do this in just a few minutes-but it really took years of training and experience to do this.
Little simple questions like:
1.) Do you hear voices?
2.) Why are you wearing that alum foil on your head?
3.) How long have you been waiting at this bus stop for the Star Ship Enterprise to transport you up?
and things like that. I guess a gun store clerk could be taught things like this.
It really sticks my hole…
Sure wished this administration would answer the fuckin’ questions about “Fast and Furious”…
Since THEY (the current admin) don’t know how to use guns, they shouldn’t be allowed to write any laws pertaining to those of us that do.
I just wish that they’d get a cklue about the words “Shall not be infringed”.
We need to start this whole ball of wax rolling by repealing the 1968 Gun Control Act, and all the subsequent addendum and revisions to it since.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms belong on store shelves and NOT as a government agency.
I just wish that they’d get a clue about the words “Shall not be infringed”.
We need to start this whole ball of wax rolling by repealing the 1968 Gun Control Act, and all the subsequent addendum and revisions to it since.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms belong on store shelves and NOT as a government agency.
#6 I thought along the same lines as you.
I would say most people would be surprised at how many aks I saw as a child in southern California….most of which were in some wanna be gangsters possession. Shit a few of the ones I witnessed were kept in a guitar (or some similarly shaped instrument) case. I remember being shocked at how cheap they were. Saw one traded for a video game system in middle school.
I don’t really like hand guns or assault rifles in gangsters or crazy whackos hands, but I don’t feel it should be kept out of a law abiding citizens possession as long as he obtained legally. As well as stores them responsibly.
As I said on another thread: an AK-47 is a selectable semiauto/auto weapon. It’s already illegal to possess one without a special permit nationwide.
The POTUS’s statement was misleading at best. Whether that misleading statement was due to ignorance or was a deliberate misstatement of fact made to mislead and/or inflame is IMO a fair question.
An “enhanced background check”? What the hell would that be? BATF has as much access as there is to our criminal backgrounds; that leaves our credit checks, and our medical histories. That last is what I think they’re after, and that will probably also be accessible when the government broadens its functions in our medical care (which they want to do.)
Great so now I may have to get a tax stamp for an AR or Ak……..well there goes the neighborhood.
If that bullshit “assault weapons” ban gets passed again by the Dems, I am officially registering, voting, and campaigning Republican for the rest of my life.
Army Sergeant: NY state retained their ban on “assault weapons” when the Federal ban expired in 2004. Isn’t that enough? (smile)
@#16, start preparing for that eventuality. If/when your doctor asks if you have firearms, smile, and lie and say no. It may take the feds a while to track you down, no sense in making it easy for them.
And, I agree, under Otaxacare, they will have access to your health records. Bet HHS and BATFE be a lot quicker to cross reference your info than DoD and DVA will be.
On my side of the house, there’s a giant loophole right now, UpNorth. Medical billing is being routed out of the US and into countries such as India. We have HIPAA, and they don’t. Want to guess how secure your medical info actually is? It’s as secure as the company — and country — that is handling it.
If the government wants to bend the rules a little, they can find out what they want to know about your health — both physical and mental.
@18: Why wait? Beat the rush and start now!