President Speaks out Against Guns

beebobby · Jul 26, 2012

The thing about this latest incident is that it seems to have motivated more of my liberal friend to consider getting their CCW. Many already own firearms, but they are thinking about taking the class. Fortunately, we have free range close by (5 min.) and an instuctor in town is offering the class. I seem to be the go to guy here when it comes to firearms, but it makes me kind of nervous because the Pres. (of the University I work at) is definately anti-gun. No carry here even though it's a private school. This university pres. is retiring soon and the new guy isn't so anti.The head of the Criminal Justice dept. would love to run all her students through the course, but it's impossible under the current pres.

KYGlockster · Jul 26, 2012

beebobby said:
On the interview with Brian Williams, Romney was asked straight out if he still felt that assault rifles should be illegal and he flat out didn't answer the question.

Actually the Pres. didn't speak out against guns, only guns in the hand of criminals or crazy folks.

“I think a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,” he said.

“I believe the majority of gun owners agree we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons," the president said. "That we should check out a person’s criminal record before they can check out at a gun store. That a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily.”

He said in the hands of soldiers, not law abiding civillians! That is speaking out against our right to bear arms! We are not soldiers, we are citizens of the United States and we are entitled to own any firearm we wish due to the United States Constitution! Of course an AK does not belong in the hands of a criminal, but how about we enforce the current legislation and not trample on our right to purchase and own firearms. If we would lock these violent criminals up or give them the death penalty when they violently assault human life we wouldn't have to worry about them obtaining a firearm. But we don't, we slap them on their wrist and make them promise to never do it again! HAHAHA. Before this man shot up the theater he was a law abiding citizen, and we can't prosecute people for thought crimes. If Aurora hadn't had an ordinance that prohibited people from carrying firearms maybe someone would have killed this idiot before he killed so many innocent people. We can't blame the gun for an action a PERSON initiates! He could have walked into the theater with explosives strapped to him and killed everyone. The point is if someone who is insane wants to hurt a large group of people he will find a way. I will not allow my rights to be taken away because of the actions of people who are of ill intent. We need to get tough on crime. I would suggest going back to the old way of enforcing justice and allow the citizens to take matters into their own hands. If we can't do that then we need to actually punish these violent people. I don't know about the rest of you, but if someone assaults another Human Being they have made it clear they have no right to be among other Human Beings, and should be kept from doing so.

Also, the President has spoke out against firearms. Look at his record when he was a State senator! I believe it speaks for itself!

beebobby · Jul 26, 2012

We are the militia and I agree that criminals who use firearms to commit crimes should have no second chances. It's the frustration that gets to me. We have to allow freedom even though bad folks will use that freedom to hurt others. I really don't know what the solution is, but it will be have to be some kind of compromise in order for it to be acceptable to all.

The Airframer · Jul 26, 2012

beebobby said:
I really don't know what the solution is, but it will be have to be some kind of compromise in order for it to be acceptable to all.

No compromise. We were born with the God-given right to bear arms and are allowed to make our own decisions and be held accountable when those choices are illegal. More laws or "compromise" will not stop the bloodshed- criminals do not obey laws, that's what makes them criminals.

Beretta92FSLady · Jul 26, 2012

The Airframer said:
No compromise. We were born with the God-given right to bear arms and are allowed to make our own decisions and be held accountable when those choices are illegal. More laws or "compromise" will not stop the bloodshed- criminals do not obey laws, that's what makes them criminals.

The presumption is that there is a God. We are born occupied with Autonomous Man, with the Fundamental Right of self-defense. But we aren't Autonomous Man in application, rather, we are social Man. Basically, our Right to self-defense is a Principle Act that is either sanctioned by the State, or made not-legal by the State.--you will go to jail if the latter is the case.

God didn't give me crap, my parents copulation is what gave me this wonder life that I bless all of you with, in my presence, nearly every day.

beebobby · Jul 26, 2012

The idea of folks walking down the street with AKs (legal or otherwise) is not going to fly with the majority of the population. You know, that majority that voted Obama in. As we saw in California, pushing the issue may just come back and bite us in the ass. While I commend your conviction to this issue, we must find a way to retain our freedom while allowing those who may not feel the way we do, feel that they have some control over their environment. As illogical as we know it is, a large part of the population feel that guns are a direct threat to their children and when you bump up against that, you can't fight their fears with logic. I believe that we must compromise or we will lose.

KYGlockster · Jul 26, 2012

The Airframer said:
No compromise. We were born with the God-given right to bear arms and are allowed to make our own decisions and be held accountable when those choices are illegal. More laws or "compromise" will not stop the bloodshed- criminals do not obey laws, that's what makes them criminals.

It makes you wonder how intelligent these Totalitarian Democrats and Republicans can really be when they ask for more Gun control. If a man commits murder, the most egregious mala in se crime there is in our society, he is obviously not going to abide by a mala prohibita Gun control statute. I believe these people have some serious mental issues, and if it wasn't for their vast wealth (of which most have inherited) they would be in a Psych ward somewhere. These people legislate from belief and nothing more. If they believe Gun control (basically taking firearms from all decent people, because they will never get them from criminals) is needed, then they will try to brainwash the masses into concurring with their belief. These people do not care about the Constitution, and they do not care that these laws will do nothing to hinder a criminals attempt to gain control of a firearm; what they DO care about is how they will disarm the law abiding citizens in this country with such legislation, and leave us with no way to push back against tyrannical attacks on our freedom. The laws that prohibit someone from doing something do not work on those who do not care what the law says, this is a proven fact! If laws did work to keep criminals from being criminals, we wouldn't have the highest incarceration rate in the world. All laws do is keep the law abiding from committing the act prohibited in the law and nothing more. I will not compromise when it comes to violation of the U.S. Constitution. The entire Federal government is nearly unconstitutional, and it is time we do something about it. When we retake this Republic, the first order of business will be to amend the Federal constitution so that it is straightforward, and so it can't be taken out of context. For example:

Amendment 2: The people of the United States of America shall, from this day forward, have the right to keep, use, and bear arms, and this right shall never be violated or prohibited at any time unless authorized by this amendment. The "people" refers to ALL citizens of this country, or ANY legal residents. The right to arms entails all arms that are manufactured as of this day, and all future designs to come; this means ALL forms of weapons, firearms, ammunition, knives, tools, or any other product that can be used or adapted for use with a weapon or as a weapon. This right is inalienable, and shall never be denied or abridged by any Government agency or any Private agency within these United States for any reason, except that those who have been convicted or have plead guilty to VIOLENT felonies shall be denied the right to keep and bear firearms or other weapons that are capable of immediate death; if someone has been convicted of a felony, but the conviction was not for an act of violence, then they shall not lose their right to weapons, unless stated in this amendment. To "keep, use, and bear arms" means to purchase, trade, transfer, own, carry concealed, carry openly, possess, fire, use, possess ammunition, possess parts and accessories, and any other use derived from the constitutionally protected use of weapons. This right is protected in this constitution for: defense of self or others, defense of state or country, hunting, sport, defense against an oppressive or tyrannical GOVERNMENT OR GOVERNMENT AGENCY, construction of militias, or any other reason or activity which weapons are involved. Anyone who tries to sponsor legislation repugnant to this amendment is guilty of felony sedition against the people of the United States and shall be impeached immediately from office and prohibited from ever holding ANY Public office again, and shall lose their right to bear arms in the United States. This amendment can never be amended and this right can never be denied or abridged. No restrictions shall ever be placed on the right protected in this amendment.

There are several other parts that need to be amended, basically the parts that pertain to the powers of the Federal government, and the rights of the people.

The Airframer · Jul 26, 2012

beebobby said:
The idea of folks walking down the street with AKs (legal or otherwise) is not going to fly with the majority of the population.

Virginia calls this Brandishing, North Carolina calls this Going Armed to the Terror of the Public. Laws are already in place, why would he bring it up if malicious intent towards our existing freedom restrictions wasn't intended.

The majority of the population looks at me funny when I OC my holstered pistol in public. It's a great thing I don't care about what the majority thinks, I obey the law and exercise the 2nd Amendment at every given opportunity.

On a side note, has anyone EVER seen somebody toting an AK-47 down their street? I wonder where that statement came from?

The Airframer · Jul 26, 2012

Beretta92FSLady said:
The presumption is that there is a God. We are born occupied with Autonomous Man, with the Fundamental Right of self-defense. But we aren't Autonomous Man in application, rather, we are social Man. Basically, our Right to self-defense is a Principle Act that is either sanctioned by the State, or made not-legal by the State.--you will go to jail if the latter is the case.

You have the right to believe what you choose, ain't being an American grand?

If my state did not sanction my right to self defense- i.e. Illinois-- I would relocate to a state that follows the Constitution, Virginia perhaps? I understand the political battlefield is raging on as these states fight for their God-given rights and thankfully, they are making progress.

KYGlockster · Jul 26, 2012

beebobby said:
The idea of folks walking down the street with AKs (legal or otherwise) is not going to fly with the majority of the population. You know, that majority that voted Obama in. As we saw in California, pushing the issue may just come back and bite us in the ass. While I commend your conviction to this issue, we must find a way to retain our freedom while allowing those who may not feel the way we do, feel that they have some control over their environment. As illogical as we know it is, a large part of the population feel that guns are a direct threat to their children and when you bump up against that, you can't fight their fears with logic. I believe that we must compromise or we will lose.

Guess what, this is a Constitutional Republic, so the majority doesn't matter. We have rights that are enumerated in the Constitution of nearly every state, and the Federal constitution. It doesn't matter if the majority doesn't like it, it matters what the constitutions say. We are partly a Democracy in the sense that we elect representatives that make the law for us, and we do have a great deal of control over them, but the constitution is the law of the land, and they can't do anything unless the Constitution authorizes it. The majority was suckered with false campaign rhetoric and nothing more. Hope and change, hope and change, hope and change, transparency, transparency!!! Blah, blah, blah. We have now seen the truth, and we will not forget. We have collected more debt in 3 1/2 years than in the previous 236 years combined! Obama has the LEAST transparent administration in the history of the United States, and we have changed for the WORSE! Nobody is going to believe his bullsh*t any longer, and people have realized that a politician will say whatever the voter wants to hear. The majority will not be baited in to the nonsense this time, and we will get Obummer out even if we do have to vote for Romney. This is not a Democracy bboy, it is a Republic, and don't forget that! If my constitution grants me the right to walk down the street openly armed, then there is nothing the majority can do about it!

KYGlockster · Jul 26, 2012

The Airframer said:
You have the right to believe what you choose, ain't being an American grand?

If my state did not sanction my right to self defense- i.e. Illinois-- I would relocate to a state that follows the Constitution, Virginia perhaps? I understand the political battlefield is raging on as these states fight for their God-given rights and thankfully, they are making progress.

I would recommend you move down here to Ky. We can walk down the street with a full-auto AK strapped on our backs and there is nothing anyone can do about it. This is a true Republic that follows the letter of the Constitution of Kentucky. We have the best self defense statutes in the country. If someone is trying to break into, or has already made entry into my home, business, or occupied vehicle we can use Lethal force, and we are protected from criminal and civil prosecution. The law says if someone is attmepting to do one of these acts then they are doing so with the intent to cause severe harm or death. We have the stand your ground law, and of course the Castle doctrine. We can use Lethal force for numerous things, including to prevent arson, dislocation of property (as in someone trying to take our home from us when they have no right), kidnapping, rape, serious bodily injury, death, or other felony involving the use of force.

Jeff Hayes · Jul 26, 2012

Beretta92FSLady said:
The presumption is that there is a God.

God didn't give me crap,

The founding fathers assumed there was a God/Creator and they assumed he granted us with "certain unalienable Rights" or they would not have said. "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."

I guess you parents could be considered your creator(s).

Beretta92FSLady · Jul 26, 2012

Orphan said:
The founding fathers assumed there was a God/Creator and they assumed he granted us with "certain unalienable Rights" or they would not have said. "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."

I guess you parents could be considered your creator(s).

Am I missing something here, are you stating that this specific portion of the Constitution was formed on the basis of a False Proposition?

pfries · Jul 26, 2012

twoskinsonemanns said:
This is my big problem with that statement. There ARE many possible things the would keep more criminals from having guns. How much of your freedom are you willing to exchance to pay for those things?

^^^This^^^ and to answer your question NONEI already feel I have given up too much between the laws in most states and Federally not to mention the Patriot act.....

Boba Fett · Jul 27, 2012

Ca Patriot said:
Proof of how responsible and safe gun owners are, is the fact that anti-gun propronents feel so safe in deamonizing us and trying to take our guns away.

The lefties sure dont feel that way about Muslims.

+1

I couldn't have said it better.

davidmcbeth · Jul 27, 2012

The Airframer said:
No compromise. We were born with the God-given right to bear arms and are allowed to make our own decisions and be held accountable when those choices are illegal. More laws or "compromise" will not stop the bloodshed- criminals do not obey laws, that's what makes them criminals.

:banana::banana: 100% agree ....

I did call the Whitehouse today and asked why O'bamalama was supporting Russian troops .... they said "whaat?" And I highlighted that O-man said that AK-47s belong with the military but our military doesn't use them so he must have been talking about Russia. The lady got it & laughed ...

Beretta92FSLady · Jul 27, 2012

davidmcbeth said:
:banana::banana: 100% agree ....

I did call the Whitehouse today and asked why O'bamalama was supporting Russian troops .... they said "whaat?" And I highlighted that O-man said that AK-47s belong with the military but our military doesn't use them so he must have been talking about Russia. The lady got it & laughed ...

US soldiers have been known to carry AK-47's as backups. I can't seem to find any policy on soldiers being barred from carrying AK-47's.

Beretta92FSLady · Jul 27, 2012

davidmcbeth said:
:banana::banana: 100% agree ....

I did call the Whitehouse today and asked why O'bamalama was supporting Russian troops .... they said "whaat?" And I highlighted that O-man said that AK-47s belong with the military but our military doesn't use them so he must have been talking about Russia. The lady got it & laughed ...

Yes, our soldiers have been know to carry an AK-47 as a backup. I can't seem to find anything where soldiers are barred from carrying an AK-47 that they pick up in the battlefield, and carry around with them on patrols.

11B2O · Jul 27, 2012

Beretta92FSLady said:
US soldiers have been known to carry AK-47's as backups. I can't seem to find any policy on soldiers being barred from carrying AK-47's.

Thats interesting. I was in the infantry for 7 years and have been to Iraq and Afghanistan multiple times have not once used or have ever heard of anyone that uses an AK47 as a "backup". I guess I should make sure supply gets on that right away.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Haz. · Jul 27, 2012

Pres. O, said, quote]""I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals," Obama said."[/quote].

So the way I see it, any law abiding American citizen who owns an AK-47 could be regarded as a criminal, or a possible criminal??

Whilst our politicians both State and Federal Down Under, carry on with the same retoric they continually try to come up with, and sometimes do come up with different ways to crack down on LAFO's rather that the criminals. The latest NSW State Governments attack on criminals, to try and stop the weekly and now daily drive by shootings in Sydney carried out by criminals involved in the Middel Eastern and Outlaw Motorcycle Gang drug wars, was to introduce; "The Firearms Ammunition Ammendment Bill 2012" which was passed recently with the help of the Anties, that is the anti everything Greens Senators!

What this bill involves is, LAFO's now have to carry with them their firearms registration papers and prove they own what ever firearm they wish to purchas ammunition for. This information, which was only available untill now to the NSW Police firearms registry, is now available to all and sundry at any firearms dealers shop, be they honest employees or not. These people now know who owns what firearms and their address where the firearms are kept. This information now can easily become available to any criminal element who wishes to pay enough money to get it.

Drive by shootings have not stopped, in fact they are on the increase. Home invasions where firearms have been stolen are on the increase. Isolated farmers and land holders firearms are now being reported stolen on a regular basis.

Not one cartrige case found at any scene of any drive by shooting has been identified as being purchased by a LAFO??

So, what has the NSW Firearms Ammunition Ammendment Bill 2012 achieved beside making available to be stolen and on sold to the criminal element the private addresses of LAFO's and types of firearms stored there?

Nothing, absolutley nothing but help criminals identify where firearms are, and what firearms are available to be stolen when owners are away! When ever anything happenes either here or overseas regarding crime involving firearms our politicians continue to cry out for tougher firearms laws, amnesties and bans! Not one criminal has ever handed in one firearm during any amnsety, any firearms ban, and they all get their ammunition the same way they get their firearms, Illegally!

President Speaks out Against Guns

Regular Member

Activist Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Activist Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Activist Member

Activist Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member