Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Pro-gun Obama?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,187

    Post imported post

    http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/1...ns-gun-control

    I like it when the Brady Bunch is irritated.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    I wouldn't go so far as to call him pro-gun, but my pre-election prediction of him having bigger things than gun control on his plate seems to be true.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,187

    Post imported post

    I wish the Brady Bunch would complain louder about him being "soft" on guns. They won't get anywhere with it, but maybe it would quell some of the "they're gonna take our guns" fearmongering driving ammo prices up.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    184

    Post imported post

    FogRider wrote:
    I wouldn't go so far as to call him pro-gun, but my pre-election prediction of him having bigger things than gun control on his plate seems to be true.
    That, and he's got to be a bit of a pragmatist. Even pelosi doesn't want to touch it with a 10' pole.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250

    Post imported post

    Obama is NOT pro-gun Just because he Doesn't Do Anything with/about/for/against firearms legislation. The White House let legislation expire; was inactive; and has not publicly formulated an opinion on the Chicago case...

    They are In Active. Doesn't make them Pro Gun.

    I would only consider Obama Pro Gun if his administration introduced Pro Gun legislation; for even if he was to verbally (orally) support the 2A- we all know talk is cheap.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,187

    Post imported post

    cscitney87 wrote:
    Obama is NOT pro-gun Just because he Doesn't Do Anything with/about/for/against firearms legislation. The White House let legislation expire; was inactive; and has not publicly formulated an opinion on the Chicago case...

    They are In Active. Doesn't make them Pro Gun.

    I would only consider Obama Pro Gun if his administration introduced Pro Gun legislation; for even if he was to verbally (orally) support the 2A- we all know talk is cheap.
    The rate he's going, he's not pro-ANYTHING. Even the health care bill that was more Congress's doing than his doesn't really DO anything. He's too ineffective for everyone's fear of of him. So can people PLEASE stop hoarding ammo so I can make it to the range once in a while???

  7. #7
    Regular Member ooghost1oo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    262

    Post imported post

    Obama is anti-gun just like the rest of his liberal agenda. Of course he wants to take away citizens' firearms so that they can't resist the tyranny.

    Back in his campaign days, someone asked him if he planned to increase gun control. He said, "No, I don't think we can do that right now."

    He intends to disarm us through the UN. He's in the process of forging a treaty with the UN that would allow UN troops into the US to assert their own (non-US) gun control against US citizens. When I was at the last Tea Party Rally, there was a petition going around for a law saying that when that happened, the state of Colorado would not participate.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250

    Post imported post

    ooghost1oo wrote:
    Obama is anti-gun just like the rest of his liberal agenda. Of course he wants to take away citizens' firearms so that they can't resist the tyranny.

    Back in his campaign days, someone asked him if he planned to increase gun control. He said, "No, I don't think we can do that right now."

    He intends to disarm us through the UN. He's in the process of forging a treaty with the UN that would allow UN troops into the US to assert their own (non-US) gun control against US citizens. When I was at the last Tea Party Rally, there was a petition going around for a law saying that when that happened, the state of Colorado would not participate.
    So the whole UN Small Arms Treaty stuff hasn't been debunked? I was under the impression that the circulating rumors and stories were debunked. I would love to know what you know; please inform us all.

  9. #9
    Regular Member ooghost1oo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    262

    Post imported post

    It's still a threat. Although I'm no expert. I'm too busy working and raising a family to do the work we send our politicians to Washington to do.

  10. #10
    Regular Member zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    228

    Post imported post


  11. #11
    scubabeme
    Guest

    Post imported post

    UN small arms treaty - pending threat? I would say so, but it's not exactly "around the corner." I'm not going to post the entire text here because it's HUGE, but this link will take you to the official UN site: http://www.poa-iss.org/PoA/poahtml.aspx, titled "Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects" It's purported purpose is to eliminate "illicit" trade. Ultimately, who decides if it's illicit or not? (Sounds a lot like MAIG's "purpose" doesn't it?)

    But I will post paragraph III.6 from the linked site:

    "With a view to facilitating implementation of the Programme of Action, States and international and regional organizations should seriously consider assisting interested States, upon request, in building capacities in areas including the development of appropriate legislation and regulations, law enforcement, tracing and marking, stockpile management and security, destruction of small arms and light weapons and the collection and exchange of information."

    That's not the only scary part, but is worth explicit exposure. The bottom line of that paragraph is registration of weapons for the purpose of tracing them--illicit or not.

    Yes, any such treaty must be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate to be legally binding on the U.S. (read this as "fire Pelosi and allher cronies"), but there is also a feeling that even if not LEGALLY binding, it could be PRACTICALLY binding if sufficient numbers of other nations "toe the line." It also appears that there is significant work that must be done by the UN before this "programme" would evolve into a treaty, but we must remain vigilant nonetheless.


    ETA: http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.c...ls-gun-rights/ Several paragraphs highlighted here.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,187

    Post imported post

    This treaty(on the ridiculously remote chance it would be ratified)doesn't make me happy in my toes, but curtailing "illicit" gun trade, even horrendously defined, is a far FARcry from "inviting UN troops" into the US. Beyond that the UN doesn't HAVE any real troops. The idea that a tyrranical government would rely on the Powder Blue Patrol rather than the US National Guard is laughably ignorantly paranoid.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    There is no way the treaty would ever be ratified in the Senate. 58 Senators voted to make all CCW reciprocal among the states. Add Scott Brown from MA, NRA A rated, and the number of pro-gun Senators goes to 59. 58 signed amicus curiae support of the McDonald case. Brown would have signed too, of course. After Nov, there will be several more pro-gun Senators who would never let the treaty out of committee. This is a threat, but a toothless one irrespective of what president hussein does or doesn't want.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Tin-Foil Hat propaganda. This is specifically about the trade of weapons, mainly for terrorist states. Has nothing to do with us.

    Obama is no more anti-gun than every President, Republican, Democrat in the last 70 years. Which means none of them give a crap.


    scubabeme wrote:
    UN small arms treaty - pending threat? I would say so, but it's not exactly "around the corner." I'm not going to post the entire text here because it's HUGE, but this link will take you to the official UN site: http://www.poa-iss.org/PoA/poahtml.aspx, titled "Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects" It's purported purpose is to eliminate "illicit" trade. Ultimately, who decides if it's illicit or not? (Sounds a lot like MAIG's "purpose" doesn't it?)

    But I will post paragraph III.6 from the linked site:

    "With a view to facilitating implementation of the Programme of Action, States and international and regional organizations should seriously consider assisting interested States, upon request, in building capacities in areas including the development of appropriate legislation and regulations, law enforcement, tracing and marking, stockpile management and security, destruction of small arms and light weapons and the collection and exchange of information."

    That's not the only scary part, but is worth explicit exposure. The bottom line of that paragraph is registration of weapons for the purpose of tracing them--illicit or not.

    Yes, any such treaty must be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate to be legally binding on the U.S. (read this as "fire Pelosi and allher cronies"), but there is also a feeling that even if not LEGALLY binding, it could be PRACTICALLY binding if sufficient numbers of other nations "toe the line." It also appears that there is significant work that must be done by the UN before this "programme" would evolve into a treaty, but we must remain vigilant nonetheless.


    ETA: http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.c...ls-gun-rights/ Several paragraphs highlighted here.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,187

    Post imported post

    Pace and Gunslinger, thank you for restoring my faith in reason.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •