imported post
http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/15/obama-spurns-gun-control
I like it when the Brady Bunch is irritated.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/15/obama-spurns-gun-control
I like it when the Brady Bunch is irritated.
-
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.
-
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.
Pro-gun Obama?
- Thread starter mahkagari
- Start date
FogRider
Regular Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
cscitney87
Regular Member
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.
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.
imported post
cscitney87 wrote:
cscitney87 wrote:
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???
ooghost1oo
Regular Member
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.
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.
cscitney87
Regular Member
imported post
ooghost1oo wrote:
ooghost1oo wrote:
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.
ooghost1oo
Regular Member
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.
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.
zach
Regular Member
S
scubabeme
Guest
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.com/2010/02/09/un-small-arms-treaty-kills-gun-rights/ Several paragraphs highlighted here.
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.com/2010/02/09/un-small-arms-treaty-kills-gun-rights/ Several paragraphs highlighted here.
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.
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.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
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.
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.
Pace
Regular Member
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:
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: