Obama: firearms position

2minkey

bootlicker
her ideology would be too much for leni riefenstahl. hey, if you wanna vote for dumb barbie meets vindictive bitch, two of the worst possible female stereotypes, that's your business. but don't expect the rest of us to effectively suppress our laughter.

hmmmm wonder why this is showin up where she gits mentioned???

imgad


EEEEEW!!!
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Read on... You only quoted a small part...
"Obama’s campaign said, “Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn’t reflect his views.”
Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Philadelphia primary debate Apr 16, 2008

Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok
Q: You said recently, “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?

A: 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 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. 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 measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.
Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008"

The question remains: If he has legislation cross his desk written and passed by an anti-firearms congress WILL HE SIGN IT?
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Let's see what happens on this one.

Obama will have three choices when this legislation comes to his desk:

Sign it
Veto it
Let it become law without his signature

If he vetoes it he will expose himself as the anti-firearms hack he is. The same with letting it become law without his signature.

The question that I have yet to get an answer to is this: In the state of Colorado one may carry a concealed, loaded firearm in their conveyance for lawful protection while traveling. This does not permit the carrying of the firearm outside the vehicle.

Will I, and other Coloradans, be able to carry a concealed firearm within those national parks located within our state boundaries?

NEWS RELEASE

CCRKBA APPLAUDS HOUSE, SENATE VOTE ON PARKS PERSONAL PROTECTION

BELLEVUE, WA
– With passage by the House earlier today of legislation that will allow legally armed citizens to carry loaded firearms in national parks, Congress has taken a responsible step toward increasing park safety for millions of visitors, whether they are armed or not, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said.

The measure passed the Senate last week on a lopsided 67-29 vote with 27 Democrats and one Independent joining 39 Republicans. Today’s House vote was equally lopsided, with 279 voting in favor of the measure and 147 voting against it.

“This is a great victory for gun rights and common sense,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “The gun prohibitionist lobby thought they had outmaneuvered the constitution with a lawsuit in March that blocked a new National Park Service rule to allow licensed concealed carry in parks. However, this legislation, which we expect President Obama to sign, essentially moots that lawsuit.

“Citizens do not leave their right of self-defense at the entrance of a national park,” he continued. “Unarmed park visitors will benefit from the deterrent effect this new statute will have on criminals, and that will be especially important if budget cuts reduce the number of commissioned park rangers.

“Those who portray this measure as an attack on public safety will soon be proven wrong, as they have been in the past when they opposed concealed carry legislation in state after state,” Gottlieb predicted. “This new law, which takes effect nine months after the president signs it, restores the Second Amendment to national parks and wildlife refuges.

“Public land, including national park and refuge land, belongs to all of the people,” Gottlieb concluded. “Armed citizens have just as much right to enjoy these parks as anyone, and their presence will make parks safer.”
 

2minkey

bootlicker
jim, you realize the CCRKBA is a joke run out of somebody's house, right? just some random jackass with an opinion...
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
jim, you realize the CCRKBA is a joke run out of somebody's house, right? just some random jackass with an opinion...

I've met Alan and he seems like a stand up guy. As for him running the organization out of his house -- Bill Gates started in his parent's garage.

Also, SAF has been working closely with the NRA on many of these lawsuits that have been coming to the fore lately. They recently joined with CalGuns in California against the arbitrary "safe guns" idiocy there. In one case, the firearms is merely the wrong color sop it it banned in CA. Did I mention that the lead attorney ois Alan Gura, the same Alaqn Gura who successfully argued before the SCotUS in the Heller case?

Maybe you should read up a bit on them. Things might have vastly changed since the last time you dealt with them.

http://saf.org/default.asp?p=saf_faq

You also might want to look up 12500 NE 10th Pl, Bellevue, WA 98005-2532 on Mapquest and then click the aerial view tab. Doesn't look very residential does it?

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
As for Obama's position on firearms control, this is very recent.

SOURCE

Has Obama Opened the Gun Control Pandora's Box?

In his joint press conference with Mexican President Calderon yesterday, Barack Obama reaffirmed his support for an assault weapons ban. At the same time, he seems to regard it as an essentially unachievable goal:

I have not backed off at all from my belief that the gun -- the assault weapons ban made sense. And I continue to believe that we can respect and honor the Second Amendment rights in our Constitution, the rights of sportsmen and hunters and homeowners who want to keep their families safe to lawfully bear arms, while dealing with assault weapons that, as we now know, here in Mexico, are helping to fuel extraordinary violence -- violence in our own country, as well.

Now, having said that, I think none of us are under any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy. And so, what we've focused on is how we can improve our enforcement of existing laws, because even under current law, trafficking illegal firearms, sending them across a border, is illegal. That's something that we can stop.​

Like many gun control advocates, Barack Obama wants to make something which is already prohibited even 'more illegal'. But while most gun control backers avoid revealing this fact, Obama owns up to it -- when he acknowledges that while it's legal to manufacture or own 'assault weapons,' it is illegal to ship them across the border. Apparently in Obama's mind, soldiers in drug cartels that are beheading police officers will be frightened about another weapons charge.

Later in the press conference, Obama said that he wants the Senate to approve the OAS treaty against illegal trafficking in firearms:

In addition, as President Calderón and I discussed, I am urging the Senate in the United States to ratify an inter-American treaty known as CIFTA to curb small arms trafficking that is a source of so many of the weapons used in this drug war.​

CIFTA is pretty obscure. The treaty was pushed by the Clinton administration and signed in 1997. But the Clinton administration never submitted it for ratification, due to political concerns over gun control. Harriet Babbitt -- the Clinton era Ambassador to the OAS -- recently testified before the Senate that the CIFTA is essentially modeled on U.S. law, and so imposes no new requirements on this nation. Ratifying it would simply show the U.S. commitment to cooperating with our OAS partners, she argues.

That said, the National Rifle Association make clear its opposition to the treaty after Obama mentioned it yesterday. They also deny Babbitt's assertion that the organization was involved in the negotiations:

The NRA is well aware of the proposed Organization of American States treaty on firearms trafficking, known by its Spanish initials as CIFTA. The NRA monitored the development of this treaty from its earliest days, but contrary to news reports today, the NRA did not "participate" at the meeting where the treaty was approved.

The treaty does include language suggesting that it is not intended to restrict "lawful ownership and use" of firearms . Despite those words, the NRA knows that anti-gun advocates will still try to use this treaty to attack gun ownership in the U.S. Therefore, the NRA will continue to vigorously oppose any international effort to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding American gun owners.​

If Obama intends to pursue ratification, it sounds like another tough vote for swing-state Democrats. And with rural voters seemingly more or less convinced that Democrats don't have any crazy plans to take away their guns, are they really willing to give Republicans more ammunition?

Posted by Brian Faughnan
 

valkyrie

Well-Known Member
You posted an opinion piece/blog. Who cares what his opinion is? I only care about the facts. You might as well have posted a link to one of your own posts in this or another thread and it would have been just as valuable to the argument. :shrug:

The ban on assault rifles is something I can live with. They've been banned before and it didn't turn this country upside down and the commies over run us. Meh... that's fine. All assault weapons in the hands of citizens now will end up being grandfathered in, so no big deal.

As for the treaty, Mexico is asking for the US to assist them in dealing with the drug cartel mess. This is just a diplomatic measure. I'm not sure what the big deal is. It's already illegal to traffic in arms. Why the hubbub, bub? :D
 

valkyrie

Well-Known Member
The question remains: If he has legislation cross his desk written and passed by an anti-firearms congress WILL HE SIGN IT?
It depends. If you read what I posted you will understand his position. Pres. Obama has repeatedly said he has no intention of taking guns away from Americans.

Yet I hear that B.S. statement all the time and I believe the only reason is to get more people to buy more guns and ammo, driving the prices way up. More money in the hands of the gun dealers and the gun stores.

The only changes you would see may be a ban on assault weapons (and current ownership would be grandfathered in) and gun locks (which as been bandied around for decades) . Many states already have measures in place such as background checks and a waiting period. Personally, I believe that gun purchase regulations/laws should be a decision for the states (which they already do). The only thing I see that the Federal Gov't would have a say on is the assault weapon ban, and only if the weapon was transported across state lines to be sold (interstate commerce).
 

valkyrie

Well-Known Member

2minkey

bootlicker
You also might want to look up 12500 NE 10th Pl, Bellevue, WA 98005-2532 on Mapquest and then click the aerial view tab. Doesn't look very residential does it?

hmmm maybe i should drive about a mile away from MY FUCKING OFFICE oh wait I have.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
assault rifle
Function: noun
Date: 1972

: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use.


(I made sure I used a neutral site for the definition.)

There has never been, nor will there ever be, a ban on shot guns, deer rifles nor .357 handguns. This is not a country like the UK.

Streetsweeper ?
Striker 12 ?

deer rifles nor .357 handguns. This is not a country like the UK.

The UK never thought they would see their firearms taken en toto either.
 

2minkey

bootlicker
Then you already know it is not a house. Why did you say that if you already knew that it is in an office building?

because i'm a DICK!!!!!

that area is mostly residential in my recollection. next time i go to the shooting range or my guitar tech, i'll do a drive by. maybe i'll even take pictures for you jim. just for you. as long as you give me a picture, sweetie.

:brow2:
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use
Virtually every gun ever made was made based on some military design. My 1911 in semi-auto & designed for the military...

There has never been, nor will there ever be, a ban on shot guns, deer rifles nor .357 handguns. This is not a country like the UK.

The 2nd was not & is not intended to cover "hunting weapons". It is for individual protection, especially against the state. Ban one & you can ban them all.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
It depends. If you read what I posted you will understand his position. Pres. Obama has repeatedly said he has no intention of taking guns away from Americans.

He stated that he would stop military tribunals and now he says he won't.

He said that he was against indefinite detention of terror suspects and now he says he will detain them indefinitely.

He said he would release the prisoner abuse photos and then said he would not.

He said he would stop earmarks and pork and then signed off on legislation that had trillions of dollars in earmarks and pork.

He said that he would stop unwarranted wire tapping but changed his mind once he found out its value.

Yet you want to believe that this guy is telling the truth when he says he is pro-second amendment?

Read THIS

As for your being okay with another assault weapon ban, it always starts with "some guns". I call them the "All we want" crowd. They will tell you that "all we want" is to take away "some guns" and then they will tell you how the other side is being alarmist and extremist. The camel's nose under the tent, boiled frog analogies will be derided. At the same time they will use these words "This is a good first step". Watch for those words and know that the last step is the goal. There is never a "Good second step".

The same people who will tell you that handguns should be banned because they serve no militia purpose are the same ones who will tell you that assault weapons should be banned because they are "weapons of war".

This is what is called "creeping incrementalism".

Remember when the "all we want" crowd said "All we want is a small area in the restaurant where there is no smoking"?
Then they said "All we want is a no smoking section on local flights."
Then they said "All we want is a no smoking section on all domestic flights."
Then they said "All we want is no smoking at all on all domestic flights."
Then they said "All we want is a no smoking section on all international flights."
Then they said "All we want is no smoking at all on all international flights."
Then they said "All we want is a no smoking section in the airport."
Then they said "All we want is no smoking at all in the airport."
Then they said "All we want is no smoking at all at indoor sports venues."
Then they said "All we want is no smoking at all at outdoor sports venues."
Then they said "All we want is no smoking at all in bars."
Then they said "All we want is no smoking at all in any public facility in town."
Then they said "All we want is no smoking at all in any public facility in the state."

Ya starting to get the picture?

There is only one question you need to answer for yourself.

If firearms are, as the Founders stated, the best tool in the hands of the people to overthrow an abusive tyrannical government; why then is that same government so anxious to remove those firearms best suited to that goal from the hands of the people?

You don't have to tell me the answer. You need to tell yourself the answer.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
because i'm a DICK!!!!!

that area is mostly residential in my recollection. next time i go to the shooting range or my guitar tech, i'll do a drive by. maybe i'll even take pictures for you jim. just for you. as long as you give me a picture, sweetie.

:brow2:

I guess this one-man home-based operation is just spitting into the wind on the subject of CCW in federal parks also.

CLICK HERE
 
Top