White House to Push Gun Control

Obama intentionally did not mention gun control in his State of the Union, but aides say that in the next two weeks the administration will unveil a campaign to get Congress to toughen existing laws.

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/27/white-house-to-push-gun-control.html

Like we didnt see this one coming. Just another example of how they still believe that the laws apply to those that break the law.

Where are the folks on here who insisted that President Obama hadn't done anything to restrict guns during his administration. The rest of us, looking at his history, said it was just a matter of time.

Not to put to childish a point on it, but...

We were right. and you were wrong, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah.

Sometimes is stinks to be right.

eye95 said:

Where are the folks on here who insisted that President Obama hadn't done anything to restrict guns during his administration. The rest of us, looking at his history, said it was just a matter of time.

Click to expand...

It is beginning.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...new-Assault-Weapons-Ban&p=1454941#post1454941

Even now, President Obama has done nothing to interfere with our rights under the 2nd. He has not decreased the ammo supply (that was our doing by buying all that the manufacturers could produce), nor has he reduced the availability of firearms to any person or group.

ATF has taken certain steps to find out who is selling to straw buyers headed to Mexico, and has gone after FFL's and others who are found to be violating our laws. So what? ATF has done this for a great many years, not just under this administration.

So quit making stuff up, and wait until you have something to complain about. The sky isn't falling yet. The President is a constitutional scholar, and he does understand, and has said, that we have an individual right to keep firearms for sporting and self-defense purposes. He does believe in restrictions, many of which you and I would find unacceptable, so we will see how far the administration goes in the proposal.

If the proposal comes as described, then we need to look at it. If it simply takes measures to prevent sales to those with a known, legally-defined mental defect, maybe we shouldn't be so upset.
Look at this for background: http://gunowners.org/ne0703.htm
Possibly, the new rule will simply follow-up on this and codify something which has languished. I personally dislike the government keep tabs on people, but if the only way to catch a mental defect is a question on a form, answered voluntarily by a purchaser set on doing harm to someone, we don't really need a rule.

There's that 100,000 M1s and M1911s that are being stalled coming back from Korea.

Kirbinator said:

There's that 100,000 M1s and M1911s that are being stalled coming back from Korea.

Click to expand...

"Upon reconsideration, the State Department is going to begin allowing import of these rifles."

From here:

http://www.ammoland.com/2011/01/13/movement-on-importing-korean-m1-rifles/

and here:

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7609

So, we'll see.

"Begin allowing." What the hell is that???

eye95 said:

"Begin allowing." What the hell is that???

Click to expand...

ATF speak for we will ignore you.

Dave Cordea says his piece on the matter.

What do ‘sporting purposes’ have to do with Second Amendment?
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-...-second-amendment?CID=examiner_alerts_article


ATF position on pistol grip 'shotguns' creates new danger
ATF position on pistol grip 'shotguns' creates new danger - National gun rights | Examiner.comhttp://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-...-new-danger?cid=parsely#parsely#ixzz1CLAPjKNT


Then Kurt Hoffman makes his contribution here:
The import ban cometh
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-st-louis/the-import-ban-cometh?cid=parsely#parsely

"Corruptisima republica plurimae leges." (The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.)

-Tacitus, Anals III 27

I have no idea what all has been said on here. I am new and trying to catch up on some reading of threads. But if you are under the illusion that Obama and his henchmen and henchwomen are not after your guns then I feel for you. He is from Chicago, do you not think that he wants to take guns out of the hands of responsible law abiding citizens? He is a very liberal man and wants government to control the entire civilian population. Why,Why,Why do some people not see the writing on the wall? Everyone pay very close attention to what is happening in Egypt right now. God bless you all.

A couple of points:

- As another poster said, Obama has not yet tried to push through gun control. While I personally think he would like more gun control, I also think that he realizes he does not have the political clout to push it through. He didn't with a Democraticly controled House and Senate and he sure doesn't with a Republican controled House.

- The Republican leadership in the house is not going to push gun control. They are wary of a Tea-Party takeover and are not going to hand the tea-party acivists within the Republican party a big stick to beat them with in the next election. Especially since there is a Democratic President, they gain little by supporting it enough to even allow a vote.

- There are things that could be proposed related to the shooting that most here would agree with. Among the possibilities:
----Treating an order by a college or organization to not return without proof of counseling, especialy when delivered through the Police Department, the same as a PPO. This would allow a person who was wrongfully accused to defend against it in court yet would also allow someone who made threats serious enough to be banned from a place to be flagged in the system. It would need some checks and balances, but it it doesn't seem off the reservation.
----Requiring colleges to report violent behavior such as his to authorities for investigation.
----Requiring / providing money to the states to make sure all of thier criminal and mental health records were added to the NICS database.
It's completely possible that something like one of these could be proposed by Obama to satisfy the anti gun people in his own party and still stand a chance of getting passed.

- Anything pushed by Obama still has to be voted on and enacted by congress unless it is a executive order. If congress votes on it, they know it will be a sticking point in the next election. Politicians remember that the Democrats lost control of the house and senate under Clinton in a large part due to their enacting the AWB. No one who has to win in a district where gun ownership is high is in a hurry to repeate that mistake. They also realise that it is not certain the courts would support a repeat of the AWB.

- I doubt that Obama will use an executive order on this as it would mobilize pro gun groups and give the Republicans an excuse to start over-riding executive orders and take back their legislative authority. He doesn't want to start that ball rolling.

eye95 said:

Where are the folks on here who insisted that President Obama hadn't done anything to restrict guns during his administration. The rest of us, looking at his history, said it was just a matter of time.

Not to put to childish a point on it, but...

We were right. and you were wrong, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah.

Sometimes is stinks to be right.

Click to expand...

Childish is right, but you've yet to be right. As it stands, he still hasn't done anything to restrict firearms. Perhaps he wants to, but that's never been the question, so your childish taunting wears thin even as it begins.

nonameisgood said:

The President is a constitutional scholar, and he does understand, and has said, that we have an individual right to keep firearms for sporting and self-defense purposes.

Click to expand...

He must not be a very good scholar, as he completely ignored a very clear and well-understood principle often mentioned by the framers and authors of our Bill of Rights, that of empowering the people with the ability to overthrow their government should that government turn sour.

Furthermore, our Constitution says absolutely nothing about either "sporting" or "self-defense" purposes. Rather, it says:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."​

So much for "Obama 'the scholar'."

nonameisgood said:

Even now, President Obama has done nothing to interfere with our rights under the 2nd. He has not decreased the ammo supply (that was our doing by buying all that the manufacturers could produce), nor has he reduced the availability of firearms to any person or group.

ATF has taken certain steps to find out who is selling to straw buyers headed to Mexico, and has gone after FFL's and others who are found to be violating our laws. So what? ATF has done this for a great many years, not just under this administration.

So quit making stuff up, and wait until you have something to complain about. The sky isn't falling yet. The President is a constitutional scholar, and he does understand, and has said, that we have an individual right to keep firearms for sporting and self-defense purposes. He does believe in restrictions, many of which you and I would find unacceptable, so we will see how far the administration goes in the proposal.

If the proposal comes as described, then we need to look at it. If it simply takes measures to prevent sales to those with a known, legally-defined mental defect, maybe we shouldn't be so upset.
Look at this for background: http://gunowners.org/ne0703.htm
Possibly, the new rule will simply follow-up on this and codify something which has languished. I personally dislike the government keep tabs on people, but if the only way to catch a mental defect is a question on a form, answered voluntarily by a purchaser set on doing harm to someone, we don't really need a rule.

Click to expand...

In some instances you are semi-correct. WE did drive the ammunition shortage, because WE did know that eventually this administration of Progressive socialist/marxists was eventually going to attempt another attack on the 2nd Amendment. But they knew they had to gain more control of every facet of life they possibly could. It's not about guns, but it's ALL about CONTROL.
We have self avowed Marxists in the highest level of the bureaucracy. We have socialist agendas being proposed every day.
I don't think I stand alone here. I stood at the border between East and West Germany looking at 12 foot fences, with Claymore mines on the fences pointed east. Saw the minefields on the east side. Just knowing that they put them there so that IF the freedom loving West Germans got over the fence they could blow them up to keep them from getting that good Communist stuff over there. (Sarcasm key turned off) The "new" proposals aren't anything new or unique. Just more of the same. A bayonet lug on a shotgun? Personally, I don't want one. If I'm down to fighting with a bayonet I'm in deeper trouble than I want to be. But if someone else wants one, more power to em.
But, limiting magazine capacity, or capacity of any weapons ammunition, nah,,forget that. Tis the reason I don't want a bayonet lug on my shotgun.
It's not beginning new, it's just resuming what's been going on since 1934. That's why they're called "Progressives". They chip away and chip away and progressively take away all the rights of citizens until eventually they'll have us like the Chinese. Living in dorms above the factories. Or is it just me thinking this?

Since9 to Push Obama Control

Vote him out!

Just thought I'd add my two cents...

The next presidential canidate would have to be a serial killer to not get my vote, then I STILL wouldn't vote for obama, I'd just move to Russia. I think even the minorities will stay at home come voting time. They should prolly actually LEARN about the canidates before voting.

protect our rights said:

The next presidential canidate would have to be a serial killer to not get my vote...

Click to expand...

Even if it's Hillary Clinton?

..then I STILL wouldn't vote for obama...

Click to expand...

Or Hillary, I hope.

...I'd just move to Russia.

Click to expand...

I think think of dozens of countries I'd rather live than Russia! Warmer ones. With beaches.

I think even the minorities will stay at home come voting time.

Click to expand...

I don't care one iota about race, religion, sex, creed, etc.

They should prolly actually LEARN about the canidates before voting.

Click to expand...

Everyone should. None of us should vote for a candidate simply because he sounds smarter or better than the other candidate, either. What matters most in my mind is, and in this order:

1. The depth and breadth of his experience in both real life as well as politics. Obama failed this test.

2. His record of where he/she stands on the issues. Both Obama and Hillary failed this test.

3. His comportment. McCain and Palin failed this test.

since9 said:

Everyone should. None of us should vote for a candidate simply because he sounds smarter or better than the other candidate, either. What matters most in my mind is, and in this order:

1. The depth and breadth of his experience in both real life as well as politics. Obama failed this test.

2. His record of where he/she stands on the issues. Both Obama and Hillary failed this test.

3. His comportment. McCain and Palin failed this test.

Click to expand...

I am of the opinion that honesty, integrity and true belief in the Constitution and the ability to "get it done" are more important than any of the above, the least of which is my view of their of social graces.