• 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.

The Obama Administration Year One: The Flight from gun control

PointofView

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
118
Location
Yorktown, Virginia, USA
imported post

When the Supreme Court in June 2008 ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm and that the Washington, D.C., gun ban is unconstitutional, Obama issued this statement.

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."

Also this---
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, says the Supreme Court ended up right where Obama was.
"Obama has said pretty consistently that he felt the Second Amendment provided an individual right to own a gun," he said.

more .. and exchange with a Q and A
Leon Harris of WJLA: "One other issue that is of great importance to the people of the district here, is gun control. You said in Idaho here, recently, that "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?"
Obama responded, "Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of people — law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying, we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets, we are going to trace more effectively how these guns are ending up on the streets, to unscrupulous gun dealers, who often times are selling to straw purchasers, and cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. ...We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measures that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions."

Both Obama and McCain voted in favor of a requirement that manufacturers and importers of handguns provide child safety locks.
In 2006, both Obama and McCain voted for an amendment to prohibit the confiscation of a lawfully owned firearm during an emergency or major disaster.

Now about that UN treaty crap people bring up on here.. read below a preamble to the whole friggen thing
UN General Assembly Resolution A/C.1/64/L.38/Rev.1, Oct. 28: Acknowledging also the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory…
Another provision acknowledges that countries have a right to arms for "self-defence and security needs and in order to participate in peace support operations."
and finally lets sum this up....

The only piece of gun legislation he has signed has been an expansion, not a contraction, of gun owners’ rights: In May, the president signed credit card legislation that included a provision allowing loaded and concealed weapons in national parks.
That hasn’t stopped gun rights advocates from believing that Obama is going to implement sweeping anti-firearms policies. Just since he’s been in office, we’ve been asked if Obama was raising the tax on ammunition by 500 percent (no), if he was dropping the program that allows commercial pilots to carry guns (no), if the "Obama regime" was going to require a federal license to own a handgun (no, again), and whether he was behind a move to tax guns and require owners to report their weapons on their federal income tax forms for 2009 (no - that bill died before Obama was even a U.S. senator).
Nevertheless, a Gallup poll in October found that 41 percent of all Americans and 52 percent of gun owners believe that Obama will try to ban the sale of guns. And people are acting on these beliefs: A run on ammunition has created shortages for sport shooters, and FBI background checks, required of most would-be gun purchasers, were up 25 percent in the first five months of 2009 compared with a year earlier.
These claims may keep coming, but they will continue to be unfounded.



Conversation is over.. point, set, match... Welcome to the real world!

Go read a book and stop crying... A guy you did not vote for is president but quit making this entire idea behind 2a seem like a bunch of babies lashing out since they voted for the vet with the 2nd worst record on veteran issues according to the Air Force Sgts association and his sidekick Caribou Barbie the Russia Viewer. Such a patriot charges six figures for speeches that she is sooooo passionate about she had to leave her job to pursue.

Also please read about his birth certificate.. This is due to the Tea Party Movement not getting wifi due to their tinfoil hats.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/has_obamas_birth_certificate_been_disclosed.html
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

Yep McCain would have been no better. I don't disagree there still doesn't disprove his other quotes and those of his staff.

Psssst.....(whispering) McCain isn't president. Oh and neither is Bush.

I don't trust any politicians.

Republicans and Democrats are heading in the same direction. If you want socialism now vote for a Democrat if you want it in 12 years vote for a Republican. And that is precisely what Americans are realizing at this stage and how fast the democrats decided to run with the ball once they had the power. Them trying to push through bill after bill after bill......we are presented with this false pretense that Dems are on the left and Republicans on the right......they both are on the left.....and have been far removed from the original intent this country was founded on.

Large 2A organizations (like the NRA)are part of this problem, they play the political games and have the false premise that you have to give in a little, and compromise to protect your rights. This is all smoke and mirrors. They also convince and ad to the myth of how open carry will damage your 2A rights.

I think it very hypocritical for people to judge folks as ignorant and have only come to their conclusions because of the NRA's (which only a small percentage of gun owners belong too) propaganda. Where did they get their information that this is the case? Chris Mathews? MSNBC, Robert Gates, Liberal news sources? No wonder the president wants to now limit free speech also. Because folks on that there internet or x-box might get some truths that support an opposing view.
 

PointofView

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
118
Location
Yorktown, Virginia, USA
imported post

This president is a constitutional attorney and I find him to be civics minded. Free health care existed in the form of walking into any ER and not being able to be turned away. Socialism is a stretch from what we have today and free speech is not going to be limited by a liberal. Try a theocratic christian conservative.

The left is in the same place it has always been, the right is moving into uncharted waters.

Arrogance is believing that you can define patriotism and then try to convince everyone else that your cause is the patriotic one. That is smoke and mirrors and exactly what the right has been doing as of recent.

Barry Goldwater would have dismissed the Glenn Beck, Palin and Ann Coulter but the tea party people claim so much that they are conservatives. Well Goldwater was well mannered and not a venom spitting politician.

The founding fathers were not as portrayed by many. The whole constitution was a liberal idea for the time and obviously they were not afraid to change things. They were not for states rights as the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution.

This government was founded by many untested and untried ideas which were then and even remain today liberal.

The constitution is able to be changed as their intent was a living document. They expected us to make changes to the constitution as needed and as we evolved. The whole intent thing may not work for 2a as it may have been established so that militias could exist and so that frontiersmen could have weapons for the continuing battles between the natives Americans and the settlers to the west.

Like so much else I see 2a as an enabler today for my ability to defend myself. I do not fear tyranny as I am military and would not follow an unlawful order and I can proudly say the same of the brothers and sisters I serve with.

The people elected the president knowing his agenda. The will of the people no matter how disagreeable it may seem to some members of this forum, is the reality of today. If the people are unhappy they can use their power at the ballot box to change the path that is taken.

All this talk of revolution and blah blah blah is beyond me, as I disagreed with the past president, and even the Iraq being a threat thing, but I still joined the military under his watch to serve my country knowing we are a country who provides a greater good in the world. We are not infallible as history may show, but we tend to right ourselves. P90X time.. Good night!
 

Slave

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
141
Location
Flint, Michigan, USA
imported post

SVG, Poinofview owned ya face man.



He just gave you the evidence I have been syaing since I started in this thread.



The fact that you guys hate Obama must be based on something else, it can't be because HE IS TRYIN TO TAKE YER GUNZ!!!111one!1!!



You guys need to focus your energy on the people who are making these stupid laws, not Obama.



People say they dislike him trying to take your guns, therefore he is evil, and a socialist commie nazi jew puppet.



In reality, he is just a politician, and people need to drop this hating him over guns. It's baseless.
 

Slave

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
141
Location
Flint, Michigan, USA
imported post

DanM wrote:
The Donkey wrote:
The quote from Eric Holder dates from just before the Administration received a letter from 65 House democrats strongly warning against gun control measures. After that, there hasn't been any enthusiasm for gun control from this administration.

There is no secret plan.

Visualize the "sequence" of gun control in this administration to be a series of zeros.

We havethe quote from Eric Holder saying Obama's effort on gun-control is merely awaiting "sequencing" issues. Waiting until there is a bit more "enthusiasm", as you put it, for gun-control fits entirely within the calculus of"sequencing" efforts on gun-control.

Show mea quote or source materialfrom any Obama administration official or the president indicating their gun-control agenda has changed from theposition Holder stated on the record.

You don't have it. Your argument is speculative and while you are free to personally hold it as long as you want, it is not intellectually defensible from the simple facts that areon the record. Holder stated a fact about his knowledge of Obama's gun-control agenda, and that fact has not been disputed, updated, or changed by anything on the record from the Obama administration. Evidencecounts in arguing about what istrue about the world, and you have no evidence for your speculation, while I've demonstrated supporting evidencefor the existence of a gun-control agenda in the Obama administration. The fact that it has not emerged is undisputed, least of all by me, but that fact is independent fromthe fact thatit exists.


Show mea quote or source materialfrom any Obama administration official or the president indicating their gun-control agenda has changed and they will now be going after our guns, on the record.

You don't have it. Your argument is speculative and while you are free to personally hold it as long as you want, it is not intellectually defensible from the simple facts that areon the record. Holder stated a fact about his knowledge of Obama's gun-control agenda, but not Obama, and that fact has not been disputed, updated, or changed by anything on the record from the Obama administration. Evidencecounts in arguing about what istrue about the world, and you have no evidence for your speculation, while I've demonstrated there is no supporting evidencefor the existence of a gun-control agenda in the Obama administration. The fact that it has not emerged is undisputed, least of all by me, but that fact is independent fromthe fact thatit exists.

See what I just did there?
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

Nobody owned my face lol. It is a joke and an insult to our forefathers to compare modern liberalism to that of our founding fathers.

I don't hate Obama I have friends that think just like him but I don't want their ideaology running my life.

I would be considered a Jefferson liberal. The assumptions made again that I am a right wing christian is way off base I am neither of those.

And here is another fact the constitution is not a living document to be interpreted. We can ad to or take from it but we do not interpret it. We interpret whether certain scenarios or situations are constitutional but not the constitution. Living document is an outright modern propagamnda tool.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

Did you not read what I said ? It can be added to or taking away from but is not up for interpretation, as many have been mislead to believe and what most people mean when they say living document.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

PointofView wrote:
The Air Force was added as it was not in existence at the time.

Hence living document.
The Air Force is simply a modern form of the Army mentioned in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, the current Air Force was once a part of the Army organization. When the Air Force was created, it was simply a reorganization. The Constitution did not change.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. Washington


Living document = usurpation
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
imported post

Barack Obama on Gun Control

Further information and sources of the below documented at
http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/barack_obama_gun_control.htm

----------------------------------------

In March 2004, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 2165 . . . with provisions designed to assert a right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions, such that self-defense requirements would be viewed to take precedence over local ordinances against handgun possession. The measure passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20. Barack Obama was one of the 20 state senators voting against the measure.

Governor Rod Blagojevich vetoed the bill. On Nov. 9, 2004, the Illinois Senate voted 40-18 to override Blagojevich's veto. Again, Obama acted against the bill.

On Nov. 17, the Illinois House voted overwhelmingly, 85-30, to override the governor's veto and Senate Bill 2165 became law.

Obama equates gun ownership or exercise of one's religion to antipathy toward other people, anti-immigrant sentiment and anti-trade sentiment. "It's not surprising they get bitter," he said, referring to decades of constrained economic opportunities. "They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban.

Obama supported the DC gun ban, and said it is constitutional.

Obama admits wanting to license and register all gun owners, but complains he can't get that done right now.

Obama cosponsored Illinois bill to limit gun purchases to one-a-month.

"I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry."--Obama

"I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities."--Obama

"Guns including assault weapons have only one purpose: to kill people."--Obama

Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
--Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
--Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
--Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

Obama voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

But...but...but, President Obama has done nothing yet as president, they say. How dare we criticize him as being anti-RKBA?

There are none so blind as those who will not see. This president is demonstrably anti-Liberty in general and anti-RKBA in specific. Any argument to the contrary can only rely on the fact that he has done nothing yet on gun control as president. Fail.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

Oh no if we don't like his socialist, anti-gun, big government tax and spend, it's because he's partKenyan.

I wonder what excuse would have been brought up if Hillary or McCain were elected and we opposed their progessive ideaologies.

You just don't like women!

You just don't like old people!
 

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
imported post

Itwould bepossible -- were it a worthy exercise --to nitpick through "On The Issues" tomake a casethat Obama was a "moderate" on gun control when he was an Illinois pol.

I don't consider it worthwhile. Instead, I would point out that our President is a political realist who doesn't waste time on doomed political agendas.

And while gun control may have had more than a candle's chance in a blizzard in the 1998 Illinois legislature, it doesn't have even that much of a chance on a federal level in 2010.

The most strident of antis will admit this.

I think that Obama is an excellent President, worthy of support -- andnot for his firearms related views.


Obama's gun control views in the current political climate are about as relevant as his opinions on broccoli.

Financial reform, climate, immigration, nuclear weapons, Israel-Palestine, Real ID, trade policy, Afghanistan, Iraq, many others: There are plentyof issues where who is the President matters.

But gun control, not so much.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

I think it is still relevent. It shows what type of person he is. He has the power to appoint judges, who believe the constitution is a living document to be interpreted and who show signs of being anti-gun. He appoints position after position in his cabinent of anti-gun people. Now he can get anti-gun rulings and regulations put into place but look like he had nothing to do with it. I wonder what he'll push for in his last year when it obvious he has nothing politically to gain any more?

President Bush did the same sort of thing with his agendas. Clinton, prior Bush, Reagan, Carter, so on so on. It has to stop.
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
imported post

The Donkey wrote:
Obama's gun control views in the current political climate are about as relevant as his opinions on broccoli.

Financial reform, climate, immigration, nuclear weapons, Israel-Palestine, Real ID, trade policy, Afghanistan, Iraq, many others: There are plentyof issues where who is the President matters.
Obama's gun control views are supremely relevant to everything because, fundamentally, a politician's view on citizenskeeping and bearing arms is the GOLD STANDARD in indicating how he TRULY views citizens.

If a politician doesn't trust citizenswithkeeping and bearing arms,does he deserve trustwiththe power of his office? Please answer that. It's a simple yes or no, and I answer "NO!" Trust is not a one way street.
 

propertymanager

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
27
Location
, ,
imported post

Obama is not a moderate on any issue. Obama is a SOCIALIST who has surrounded himself in the White House with socialists, communists, and marxists. He is now and always has been anti-gun. He hasn't gone after guns YET because he is waiting for the right time to do so. Right now, he is busy consolidating the control he hason major segments of the American Economy. He WILL get around to gun control, most likely just afterthe coming economic collapse.
 

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
imported post

DanM wrote:
The Donkey wrote:
Obama's gun control views in the current political climate are about as relevant as his opinions on broccoli.

Financial reform, climate, immigration, nuclear weapons, Israel-Palestine, Real ID, trade policy, Afghanistan, Iraq, many others: There are plentyof issues where who is the President matters.
Obama's gun control views are supremely relevant to everything because, fundamentally, a politician's view on citizenskeeping and bearing arms is the GOLD STANDARD in indicating how he TRULY views citizens.

If a politician doesn't trust citizenswithkeeping and bearing arms,does he deserve trustwiththe power of his office? Please answer that. It's a simple yes or no, and I answer "NO!" Trust is not a one way street.


Well, Obama said he does trust most citizens with keeping and bearing arms. He just wants to keep them out of the hands of inner city criminals and the mentally ill.
 

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
imported post

propertymanager wrote:
Obama is not a moderate on any issue. Obama is a SOCIALIST who has surrounded himself in the White House with socialists, communists, and marxists. He is now and always has been anti-gun. He hasn't gone after guns YET because he is waiting for the right time to do so. Right now, he is busy consolidating the control he hason major segments of the American Economy. He WILL get around to gun control, most likely just afterthe coming economic collapse.

I know. I know.

Glen and Rush agree so it must be true.

But if you spend all your time down in the basement, will you recognize the economic collapse when it comes?
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
imported post

The Donkey wrote:
Well, Obama said he does trust most citizens with keeping and bearing arms. He just wants to keep them out of the hands of inner city criminals and the mentally ill.
This isn't true. Review the web-page I linked to above. Look, I understand and see thatObama has some qualities that are good, but don't let that get in the way of being honest about his actions and his views on citizens keeping and bearing arms. He expresses views and, most telling, has taken actions that go well beyond keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. His views and actions would keep and have kept guns wrongfully out of the hands of perfectly law-abiding citizens, most particularly with regard to his support and actions with banning guns blanketly in wide geographic areas.

I think credibility around here is important, and I think you are endangering your credibility trying to characterizeObama'sgun control statements and actionsthe way you are attempting.
 
Top