• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

A seemingly confused President Obama takes stand against gun owners during debate

John Pierce

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
1,777
When a question about guns was finally asked during tonight’s town-hall style debate it was nothing more than yet another attempt to resurrect support for the so-called ‘assault weapons ban’.


This question clearly played to the President’s ideology and he took the opportunity to reiterate his support for the failed Clinton-era policy despite his admission that the violence in our cities is not being caused by sporting firearms. Nonetheless, he assured the crowd that he wants to ban them.


He followed this up with a number of statements that seem to indicate that he doesn’t even understand the difference between fully-automatic weapons and the semi-automatic sporting rifles that would actually be affected by the ban.

But don’t take my word for it. Here are some of his comments:

Read more at http://monachuslex.com/?p=2161
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
When a question about guns was finally asked during tonight’s town-hall style debate it was nothing more than yet another attempt to resurrect support for the so-called ‘assault weapons ban’.


This question clearly played to the President’s ideology and he took the opportunity to reiterate his support for the failed Clinton-era policy despite his admission that the violence in our cities is not being caused by sporting firearms. Nonetheless, he assured the crowd that he wants to ban them.


He followed this up with a number of statements that seem to indicate that he doesn’t even understand the difference between fully-automatic weapons and the semi-automatic sporting rifles that would actually be affected by the ban.

But don’t take my word for it. Here are some of his comments:

Read more at http://monachuslex.com/?p=2161

Ohio is a gun state, how could he be that stupid? Wisconsin, Colorado, PA, just what was he thinking?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
John Pierce wrote: People may argue for days as to whether Romney or Obama won the debate but I do know who lost … the truth.


Obviously, politicians believe truth is a valuable resource---and are economizing on it. (Borrowed from Mark Twain's comment about liars.)
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I believe in a total ban on guns, you know, those anti-tampering devices on script mediation so idiots who leave their meds on high chairs can feel safe knowing that they are idiots?
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Thread number 3, and the comments in all three threads indicate the same thing, Obama is going to have it harder in gun states.

I can't believe he did that, embraced support for a law then admitted next sentence it wouldn't work
 

twpetry

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
45
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
I think Obama made his intent very clear: not only does he want to reinstate the "Assault Weapons" ban, he clearly stated he thinks the real problem is handguns, and that is scary. :eek:
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I think Obama made his intent very clear: not only does he want to reinstate the "Assault Weapons" ban, he clearly stated he thinks the real problem is handguns, and that is scary. :eek:

President Obama definitely didn't hide his view on Firearms, and AWB.

The President stated that self-defense is included under the purpose of the Second Amendment.

The thing about what he stated though, every person knows that he is not a friend to what he regards as Assault Weapons.--no shocker this evening in that arena. Also, what isn't a shocker, that Romney is just as anti Second Amendment and firearm stupid as the President.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
It's incredible how you guys swallow the rhetoric.
NEITHER party wants the populous to be as "armed" as the government who controls the populous.
 
Last edited:

Steveboos

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
50
Location
Charlotte, NC
If you had to keep track of THAT many lies, you'd be confused too.

Perfect statement that covers a lot of politicians. It must be difficult to have so many people telling you what to say, then when people get angry that you said it, you switch sides... But Firearms don't cause issues, crazy people do...
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
1. Considering that one of Obama's financial backers is the notorious George Soros, I think it is safe to say that, should Obama be re-elected, we will shortly see an attempt to completely (not just "assault weapons") disarm the American citizenry.

2. I'm not too fond of Mitt Romney, but, of the two, he is probably much less anti-Second Amendment than is Obama. That considered, his stance as Governor of the state of Massachusetts was much less than stellar.
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
1. Considering that one of Obama's financial backers is the notorious George Soros, I think it is safe to say that, should Obama be re-elected, we will shortly see an attempt to completely (not just "assault weapons") disarm the American citizenry.

2. I'm not too fond of Mitt Romney, but, of the two, he is probably much less anti-Second Amendment than is Obama. That considered, his stance as Governor of the state of Massachusetts was much less than stellar.
Better to have your politicians piss high and fail to meet the mark than piss low and make their target.

If Obama is going to try and take all of our guns, he's not going to be successful. If Romney is going to take only some of our guns, he will be far more successful than Obama. Not just because the smaller baby steps are the most successful either, but also because he has the backing of a Republican majority as well. Something to consider. :uhoh:
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
You did note Obama said "CHEAP" handguns....so Jim Crow in chief wants another Jim Crow law that disenfranchises the poor. It's too bad Romney didn't pick up on that...but then he is an elitist himself.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
You did note Obama said "CHEAP" handguns....so Jim Crow in chief wants another Jim Crow law that disenfranchises the poor. It's too bad Romney didn't pick up on that...but then he is an elitist himself.

Not even Fox has picked up on it, for some reason the news is dodging his remarks. They also ignored the Crowley agreed with Romney that Obama tired to blame the youtube video for the attack for two weeks. Not seeing a big effort on the media to highlight Crowley admitted she screwed up.

BTW there is no such thing as cheap handguns, the least expensive I have seen is the nagant revolver, not heard of one used in a crime.
 
Last edited:
Top