And he Starts Coming for Guns....

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Well the openng "Salvo has finally made it from his lips...well he wrote his own Op-Ed...no thats not right, one of his minions wrote sn Op-ed for him....

President Obama: We must seek agreement on gun reforms
Arizona Daily Star |
Posted: Sunday, March 13, 2011 12:00 am

Obama Pens Op-Ed Calling for Better Gun Sale Background Checks - FoxNews.com
President Obama: We must seek agreement on gun reforms

It's been more than two months since the tragedy in Tucson stunned the nation. It was a moment when we came together as one people to mourn and to pray for those we lost. And in the attack's turbulent wake, Americans by and large rightly refrained from finger-pointing, assigning blame or playing politics with other people's pain.

But one clear and terrible fact remains. A man our Army rejected as unfit for service; a man one of our colleges deemed too unstable for studies; a man apparently bent on violence, was able to walk into a store and buy a gun.

He used it to murder six people and wound 13 others. And if not for the heroism of bystanders and a brilliant surgical team, it would have been far worse.

But since that day, we have lost perhaps another 2,000 members of our American family to gun violence. Thousands more have been wounded. We lose the same number of young people to guns every day and a half as we did at Columbine, and every four days as we did at Virginia Tech.

Every single day, America is robbed of more futures. It has awful consequences for our society. And as a society, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to put a stop to it.

Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land. In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that's handed from generation to generation. Hunting and shooting are part of our national heritage. And, in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners - it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.

The fact is, almost all gun owners in America are highly responsible. They're our friends and neighbors. They buy their guns legally and use them safely, whether for hunting or target shooting, collection or protection. And that's something that gun-safety advocates need to accept. Likewise, advocates for gun owners should accept the awful reality that gun violence affects Americans everywhere, whether on the streets of Chicago or at a supermarket in Tucson.

I know that every time we try to talk about guns, it can reinforce stark divides. People shout at one another, which makes it impossible to listen. We mire ourselves in stalemate, which makes it impossible to get to where we need to go as a country.

However, I believe that if common sense prevails, we can get beyond wedge issues and stale political debates to find a sensible, intelligent way to make the United States of America a safer, stronger place.

I'm willing to bet that responsible, law-abiding gun owners agree that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few - dangerous criminals and fugitives, for example - from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.

I'm willing to bet they don't think that using a gun and using common sense are incompatible ideas - that we should check someone's criminal record before he can check out at a gun seller; that an unbalanced man shouldn't be able to buy a gun so easily; that there's room for us to have reasonable laws that uphold liberty, ensure citizen safety and are fully compatible with a robust Second Amendment.

That's why our focus right now should be on sound and effective steps that will actually keep those irresponsible, law-breaking few from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.

• First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the filter that's supposed to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. Bipartisan legislation four years ago was supposed to strengthen this system, but it hasn't been properly implemented. It relies on data supplied by states - but that data is often incomplete and inadequate. We must do better.

• Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens.

• Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can't escape it.

Porous background checks are bad for police officers, for law-abiding citizens and for the sellers themselves. If we're serious about keeping guns away from someone who's made up his mind to kill, then we can't allow a situation where a responsible seller denies him a weapon at one store, but he effortlessly buys the same gun someplace else.

Clearly, there's more we can do to prevent gun violence. But I want this to at least be the beginning of a new discussion on how we can keep America safe for all our people.

I know some aren't interested in participating. Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody's guns. And such hyperbole will become the fodder for overheated fundraising letters.

But I have more faith in the American people than that. Most gun-control advocates know that most gun owners are responsible citizens. Most gun owners know that the word "commonsense" isn't a code word for "confiscation." And none of us should be willing to remain passive in the face of violence or resigned to watching helplessly as another rampage unfolds on television.

As long as those whose lives are shattered by gun violence don't get to look away and move on, neither can we.

We owe the victims of the tragedy in Tucson and the countless unheralded tragedies each year nothing less than our best efforts - to seek consensus, to prevent future bloodshed, to forge a nation worthy of our children's futures
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Ok, any bets on how many who say the Constitution MUST be protected go along with this? Guess no one seems to grasp the idea of "shall not be infringed".

Those same people have NO problem with the back ground checks despite the idea that NO one is EVER guilty of anything until proven guilty. Why do a check on innocent people?

Our government is WAY out of control. They are overstepping their bounds daily. They need to be controlled.

I hear calls for protests against the WBC, are those same groups going to fight this with the same vigor? Some how I really doubt it.
 

zero3nine

Veteran Expediter
It's time to cull the herd.

Buy them cheap and stack them deep. Arm yourselves before it becomes impossible to do so.

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

fired at you from my Droideka
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
You got that right!!! Let 'em try and come after me. That slimy coward trashes our Constitution on an almost daily basis. The same slimy coward that did NOT have the stones to "protect and defend" our Constitution and ridiculed those who DO when he was speaking on the floor of the Senate.

Do I take his garbage personal? YEP, sure do. I OWN a LOT of guns. I have been a law abiding citizen who served and DID protect and defend our Constitution for 20 years. It was my son and nephew that he said were "terrorists".

Funny, I still contend that he could NOT pass a REAL security clearance back ground check and he wants those who DID pass them to get checked just to exercise our Second Amendment rights.

OBAMA SUCKS!! :mad:

Domestic enemy comes to mind.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Most likely he signed his name to something written for him. We have over 26,000 gun laws already. We need no more gun laws. He is right about one thing. We need common sense. Common sense is national right to carry, with proper training and demonstration of ability. Common sense is recognizing that even in their dementia those who would misuse firearms choose targets made safe for their action by those lacking common sense, Obama and his ilk. Eliminating the government sanctioned free fire zones is the solution.

Further abuse of the Constitution and the hundreds of millions of honest citizens is unwarranted and unneeded as well as illegal. The founding fathers anticipated pretty speeches and editorials such as this one. Their advice was to give them the guns, bullets first.
 
Last edited:

Poorboy

Expert Expediter
He's going to have to come to my house personally to get mine! Then I'll just give him one piece of it!
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
How about we enforce the laws we have that have to do with crime?

A national right to carry?

NOPE, I want the states not to lose any more rights. This is one other thing that would be federalized and one other thing that will just give the feds more power.

IF we have to do background checks which I think is a good idea, then it should be simplified -

a list of convicted felons in the system

a list of mentally ill who have been deemed by court to be mentally ill

AND that's it.

The former is already in the public records, the latter has to do with privacy but the solution is just a simple go-no go sale indicator and nothing else. Don't need a $40M to put the system together.

Your name doesn't appear there unless there has been a serious legal action taken against you AND you have been convicted or have a mental issue.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
NO FEDERAL back round checks of any kind, PERIOD! They have no standing to impose them. I am NOT sure the States should have them either. Yes, they MAY stop some crime, no proof of that. MAYBE they could stop a person with a mental problem, again NO proof. Back round checks will NEVER stop the problem of a normal person developing a mental problem AFTER they buy a gun.


The danger of abuse and loss of our rights with the Feds or States "controlling" our RIGHTS is FAR more dangerous and has the potential for FAR greater loss of life than what we have now.

Freedom MAY be dangerous, it often is. Total control of the People by the government, ANY government, is ALWAYS dangerous and has accounted for more deaths than just about any other cause.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
barry and his minions and the "gun grabbers" know that they don't have the people on their side and that Congress could be in their wat also...so they are looking to "EXECUTIVE ORDER"...

For gun control advocates, however, executive action remains a more promising -- albeit more limited -- vehicle for reform than Congress. On Monday, The Huffington Post first reported that the Justice Department was convening meetings with groups from across the ideological spectrum in an effort to chart potential policy changes to Second Amendment law.

Obama Looking For Ways Around Congress On Gun Policy

First Posted: 03/15/11 04:33 PM Updated: 03/15/11 04:33 PM With Reporting By Lucia Graves
Obama Looking For Ways Around Congress On Gun Policy

WASHINGTON -- Faced with a Congress hostile to even slight restrictions of Second Amendment rights, the Obama administration is exploring potential changes to gun laws that can be secured strictly through executive action, administration officials say.

The Department of Justice held the first in what is expected to be a series of meetings on Tuesday afternoon with a group of stakeholders in the ongoing gun-policy debates. Before the meeting, officials said part of the discussion was expected to center around the White House's options for shaping policy on its own or through its adjoining agencies and departments -- on issues ranging from beefing up background checks to encouraging better data-sharing.

Administration officials said talk of executive orders or agency action are among a host of options that President Barack Obama and his advisers are considering. “The purpose of these discussions is to be a productive exchange of good ideas from folks across the spectrum,” one official said. “We think that’s a good place to start.”

Earlier in the day, House Democrats joined New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to offer another possible starting point, announcing legislation that would make fundamental changes to the nation’s gun background check system. Sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), a longtime gun control advocate, the bill mirrors one introduced late last month by another New York Democrat, Sen. Chuck Schumer.

“Too often, any serious discussion about guns devolves into ideological arguments that have nothing to do with the real problem,” Bloomberg, a co-founder of the coalition Mayors Against Illegal Guns, told reporters at a press event outside the Capitol. “Our coalition strongly believes in the Second Amendment. We also know from experience that we can keep guns away from dangerous people without imposing burdens on law-abiding gun owners."

For gun control advocates, however, executive action remains a more promising -- albeit more limited -- vehicle for reform than Congress. On Monday, The Huffington Post first reported that the Justice Department was convening meetings with groups from across the ideological spectrum in an effort to chart potential policy changes to Second Amendment law.

The discussions were meant to build a broad coalition around the elements of reform Obama had outlined a day earlier in an op-ed for the Arizona Daily Star, including stronger state-to-state coordination, expedited background checks and greater enforcement of the laws already on the books, especially with regard to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
 
Last edited:

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Of COURSE Barry is looking for ways around the Constitution. He HATES our Constitution and our freedoms. He WANTS to rule and control the People. He has NO business being president or even living in this country. He is showing us more and more that he is the definition of a "domestic enemy". His attacks on our Constitution are dangerous AND will soon become fatal for anyone who defies his rule.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Did none of you actually read the articles? Not even the op-ed penned by Obama (or whoever actually wrote it for him)? Did you only read the highly opinionated twisted interpretation of what the Department of Justice said, or did you bother to take note of what the Department of Justice actually said? Things like, "on issues ranging from beefing up background checks to encouraging better data-sharing," and "first, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books," and keeping guns out of the hands of felons and crazy people isn't the Chicken Little "executive order as a way around Congress" and "they're coming for our guns" sky-is-falling crap that is asserted in by the authors of these Blog posts, nor of those who have replied here in this thread. What's wrong with you people?

While I do believe, absolutely, that "shall not be infringed" means exactly that, I also don't want felons and crazy people to have guns. You can't hear the words "gun control" and "gun control reform" and just immediately knee-jerk start screaming about it intelligently unless you know what you're screaming about. The only people who want to allow felons and crazy people to have guns are felons and crazy people.

...stronger state-to-state coordination, expedited background checks and greater enforcement of the laws already on the books

Yeah, boy, them's fightin' words. Let's all get frothy and practice our cold death grips on our guns.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
The danger of abuse and loss of our rights with the Feds or States "controlling" our RIGHTS is FAR more dangerous and has the potential for FAR greater loss of life than what we have now.

Freedom MAY be dangerous, it often is. Total control of the People by the government, ANY government, is ALWAYS dangerous and has accounted for more deaths than just about any other cause.

You look around lately?
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
You look around lately?


Yes Greg, I know what is going on. Let's first remove ALL other means of illegal deaths, like auto's booze, drugs, etc etc.

Gun deaths, as bad as they are, are hardly the worst. Gun accidents are so far down the list it is not even funny.

NO government can be trusted. Just how many people were MURDERED by countries with "common sense" gun controls last century? 50 million? 100 million?

I don't want felons or mental cases to have them either. I want a 100% full proof way that my RIGHT to own AND carry what ever I chose to own or carry will NOT be infringed AND I am NEVER questioned when I CHOSE to partake in my Constitutional RIGHTS!!

I wonder, how about a back round check for citizenship when registering for voting. Think Obama would back that?

NO government, federal OR state, has ANY right to interfere with my right to defend my family, my property OR my self.
 
Top