Obama: "I'm not going to take your guns away."

Night Watch

New member
:) Hooray for Obama! That's great. Yes, Sir, he's really got me sold! Then I guess I get to keep my copy of The Holy Bible, too, right?

I mean what possible harm could a few good old fashioned Christian morals do to anyone? I was hoping, 'Lord Hanuman' would finally reveal his position on these thorny issues. Now that the truth is finally out, hooray for Obama! :p
 

wncchester

New member
"At worst, they'll be grandfathered in under whatever ban might wind up getting passed. He'll just keep you from buying more."

No. That's not at all the worst he will at least try to do.

The libs KNOW they would have a hard fight to outlaw guns, per se. But they KNOW they can impliment "common sense" licensing and regrestration laws, right? So, they will simply do for the nation what they did in Philidelphia some fourthy years ago; the new laws required the owners first be licensed to legally own firearms. It took a short test on safety and storage requirements, license was for about 5 years and cost little. Then, within a few years the license was for something like 2 years and cost more. Then annual licenses, at much higher cost each year. But, they had an even worse plan to go along with that one, regrestration fees and methods.

First regrestraitions were for five years at a small fee and they simply accepted your statement of what you owned, its model, caliber and serial number. Not too bad, right? So the same trick was done, more frequent regristrations and increasing costs. Plus, the owners eventually had to bring in the individual guns so the gov. clerk behind the desk could look them over. Slowly. One clerk. While a long line of people waited their turn to be blessed by a lowely gov clerk with his long-sought position of power over others. And IF the clerk's records were fouled up he kept the guns until the owner could prove him wrong, there was no recorse for the owner who was trying his best to obey a law the Supreme Court had said could not be required for criminals becase it would be self incremination for them to attempt to do so!

Most people did what it was designed to do, they sold their firearms rather than live with the costs and insults.

So, no, Obammy won't directly attemp to take way your God given, as he sees it, "rights to hunt and shoot skeet" but he WILL make it very difficult and expensive to do so legally. It's the modern "liberal" way, to kiss your lips while knifing you in the back you know!
 

publius42

New member
As alluded to your issue is with Congress, not Obama. Elect pro gun candidates to Congress and it won’t make any difference who the president is.

It makes a difference. The Senator from Acorn is extremely left wing, basically the political wing of America's worst leftists. If he's President, he will be appointing judges at all levels, as well as execs at agencies like BATFE. Leaving aside the mischief a BATFE led by an Obama appointee might cause, let's recall the recent Heller decision:

SCALIA, J. (Reagan), delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J. (W), and KENNEDY (Reagan), THOMAS, (GHWB) and ALITO, JJ. (W), joined. STEVENS, J. (Ford), filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER (GHWB), GINSBURG (Clinton), and BREYER (Clinton), JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

And that's just on guns. Don't forget the expansive view of "public use" advanced by the left in the Kelo case, or the expansive view of "interstate commerce" in the Raich case.
 

Revelation76

New member
KayakerSteve-
Why trust anything he says at this point, His goal is to get elected - Be smart, look at his track record and affiliation with Chicago --- Nothing more needs to be asked. Strong points of views like that dont change.

No need to tell me. ;)

I'm just saying that what I now want to see is Obama sweating and stammering when someone forces him to finally give a full and honest answer on the HD widescreen during a debate. :D
 

Fremmer

New member
What I also believe is that there's nothing wrong with some common sense gun safety measures.

Obama's "common sense safety measures" include banning handguns. And semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. And "assault weapons." And repealing the protection of lawful commerce in arms act (which Obama voted against).

Folks, the democrats have gun control legislation pending in Congress RIGHT NOW! Yep, the democrats are ready to present a new assault weapons ban to their man Obama for his signature. Of course, that is simply "common sense gun safety measures." Remember, it's not about the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution; it's about protecting you folks from yourselves -- by banning the guns, magazines, and ammuntion that only the government should be able to possess. At least according to Obama.

Barak Obama = banning guns and ammuntition. :barf:
 
Last edited:

gc70

New member
These original sponsors of the AWB - Feinstein, Boxer, Kennedy, Lautenberg, Levin, Mikulski, Murray, and Pryor - would like to see the AWB reinstated so they can relive their former glory - and without a sunset provision to spoil their legacy.
 

jkkimberfan

New member
Obama will follow the New Jersey model of gun ownership.

Obama is strongly supported by NJ Governor Corzine (Leftist Democrat), NJ Senator Menedez (Leftist Democrat) and NJ Senator Loutenberg (Leftist Democrat) as well as every other NJ Democrat. NJ Democrats have already passed into law; one a month handgun purchases, no CCW (unless you are law enforecment or have donated large sums of money to the NJ Democratic Party machine), child proof handguns (law enforcement is exempt because they know they will not be reliable to work), .50 caliber ban, "Assault" weapon ban which includes semi automatics which just look scary , and now they are working on ammo bans, outlawing of lead bullets, closing ranges, banning hunting, confiscation of guns for any reason a police officer suspects anything, and of course the big one: all guns are banned in NJ unless they are covered by a special exemption which could be taken away by the liberal Democrat Legislature any day. Obama supports all of this, leaving us peasants pray to armed criminals who will always get hold of guns or deadly weapons. Gun control laws do not work on criminals, that's why they are criminals. Obama and his Democrats know this, but they don't care, they just want to eliminate guns (except those protecting their families). Maybe.........they will allow their subjects to own a single shot shotgun for duck hunting? if we beg enough?
 

Dearhunter61

New member
Revelation76

Yep....he only wants to take the assault rifles and on and on and on away from children:barf::barf::barf::barf::barf::barf:

The only thing that will happen if he can do this is that the very ones supposedly being prevented from owning them will own them.

You and I will be unable to defend ourselves against them!

YOU NEED TO WAKE UP! This guy is DANGEROUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Musketeer

New member
Obama can't "take away your guns."

Neither could Ray Nagin since it was illegal by the COTUS and LA State Constitution... Yet we saw footage of law abiding citizens cuffed on their front lawn while cops in paramilitary gear took away the guns within their home.
 

Revelation76

New member
deerhunter61 wrote-

Revelation76
Yep....he only wants to take the assault rifles and on and on and on away from children

The only thing that will happen if he can do this is that the very ones supposedly being prevented from owning them will own them.

You and I will be unable to defend ourselves against them!

YOU NEED TO WAKE UP! This guy is DANGEROUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've been awake for quite a while now, thanks.

I have a feeling that people are reading a post or two of mine, and having kneejerk reactions to them, like I don't understand that Obama is anti-gun. I don't feel the need to only post that Obama is "SO ANTI GUN-OMG!!!!!" It's better to examine things carefully, for those that may still be undecided.

I'm not the kind of poster that wants to preach to the choir. I won't just make statements like,"This guy is dangerous!!!!!!!!!!!!"

That convinces no one.

Since I am a real person on this keyboard, with some previous posts, perhaps YOU could wake up, deerhunter61, and read them before jumping on me. :)
 

USAFNoDak

New member
Barack Obama:
Response: "I think this is a great question, so I just want to clear it up, because I know there's probably some sportsmen here in the audience. I believe in the second amendment, and if you are a law abiding gun owner, you have nothing to fear from an Obama administration. This had been peddled again and again. You're absolutely right, people constantly say this.

Look, here's what I believe. That the second amendment is an individual right and it means something. That people have a right to bear arms. What I also believe is that there's nothing wrong with some common sense gun safety measures. For example, that we should have strong background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, to keep them out of the hands of the mentally disabled. We should have mechanisms to trace guns that are used in crimes back to the gun dealers that sold them to shut down supplies of illegal guns. You know, that kind of thing is common sense, and it has nothing to do with the guy who has got his rifle and wants to go hunting. Now, the NRA sometimes... I'll be honest, and I'm sure there's some NRA members here... their general attitude is, 'Look, we don't want anything, and if you even breathe the word 'gun control' or 'gun safety,' then you must want to take away everybody's guns.' Well that's just not true.

But what we have to understand is that there's two realities about guns in this country. There's the reality of people who are lawfully and safely using guns for hunting and skeet shooting and protecting their families, and you've got illegal handguns being dumped in Philadelphia in the hands of teenage gang-bangers and drug dealers who are wreaking havoc and killing people. And surely we can come up with a system that protects lawful gun owners but tries to do something about kids getting shot. And that's the only... that is the job of the President is to reconcile this tradition of gun ownership in this country with some basic public safety concerns.

The bottom line is this: If you've got a rifle, you've got a shotgun, you've got a gun in your house, I'm not taking it away. Alright? So they can keep on talking about it, but this is just not true. And by the way, even if... here's another thing you've gotta understand, even if I wanted to take it away, I couldn't get it done. I don't have the votes in Congress. So this is something that, if you believe that I'm the best guy when it comes to jobs, if you believe I'm the best guy when it comes to health care, if you believe that I'm the best guy on education, and that I'm going to be looking out for you and fighting for you, this can't be the reason not to vote for me. Your guns... we're not going to mess with them."

Holy cow, this is so easy. Let's read between the lines here a little bit. Think of what Obama says above, and then think about how Washington, D.C. is implementing their new form of gun control. They would lay right over each other like a good fingerprint lifted from a crime scene.

He is setting himself up (or maybe trying to set us up), albeit slyly, to push for a Washington, D.C. type of gun control at the national level.

Washington, D.C. doesn't take away anyone's shotguns or rifles. But the law says they have to be unloaded in your house unless there is an immediate and imminent threat to your life. Then, and only then, can you load your gun and try to defend yourself.

W, D.C. requires that any handgun be registered with the city and it's revolvers only boys and girls. See Dick Heller for an example.

Oops, no assault weapons boys and girls. Those are for military duties only. They won't come and take them away by force, going door to door, but they'll make it impossible to purchase ANY new ones and they'll impose a registration tax so high that many folks will give them up. They'll eventually have an Assault Weapon Buyback program at the national level. How are they going to pay for it? Easy. With a new tax on any ammo that could be possibly used in any assault weapon. This would, of course, include semiautomatic pistols. So even .22 ammo would get hit with the tax. Also, don't forget about riot type shotguns being classified as assault weapons, so the tax will hit shotgun ammo as well. 9mm, .45, & .40 S&W would also get hit with the tax.

Everyone remarks what good oral skills Obama has. This is one example of his skill to make it sound as if he's your friend while he has others working to take you down a notch or two because he doesn't agree with some of your positions. He is good at masking the real agenda behind rhetoric that he surmises his audience would agree with. He believes he is sooooo much smarter than the hicks in PA, and this was revealed in his statements to the elitist crowd, whom he tends to agree with, in San Fran. That was a look into his soul and how he says certain things to certain people. He's a flim flam man and a snake oil salesmen, all rolled up into one. I'm not buying anything that he is peddling. I have better, more trustworthy suppliers. :cool:
 

JWT

New member
Obama supports the 2nd ammendment but wants some 'common sense gun safety measures'. Somehow that's less than comforting since 'common sense' will be defined by Obama and almost certainly look like those in Chicago at best.

Pigs will fly before Obama becomes pro gun in any sense of the word.
 

USAFNoDak

New member
Obama supports the 2nd ammendment but wants some 'common sense gun safety measures'. Somehow that's less than comforting since 'common sense' will be defined by Obama and almost certainly look like those in Chicago at best.

I am highly doubtful that he truely supports, and is interested in defending, the 2nd A. I think he is using the Heller decision as political cloud cover to get himself elected. If elected, he would work very closey with his cronies in Congress to nullify the rights protected by the 2nd A. as much as they could possibly get away with before the USSC stepped in. He's hoping that he would eventually get to nominate another liberal to replace a moderate judge, on the Supreme Court, who might retire. Then they could get dependable 5-4 rulings, regarding gun laws, in the liberals' favor. I truely believe that Obama is thinking out to his full 8 years as a potential President and how much he could "change" the US to fit his marxist, group think, ideology. He is smart, I'll give him that. He might be inexperienced right now, but he's got a plan for which he cannot give us all the details without risking his loss of the election.
 

USAFNoDak

New member
I seriously don't want to open up a pro life vs. pro choice debate here. However, note how the democrats are playing the "We won't take away your guns" card while on the other hand accusing McCain/Palin of threatening to take away a womans right to an abortion. Even if Roe vs. Wade was overturned, it doesn't mean there would be a federal law which outlaws abortions. It would turn the matter back over to the states to decide. The liberals make it sound as if Roe vs. Wade nullified a federal law, which it didn't. States could still make abortions legal if their legislators so voted.

But here you have Obama all worked up trying to tell gun owners and gun rights supporters (not all of whom own guns) that he is not trying to take away our rifles and shotguns. I just find that sort of interesting to compare the two views on which rights should be protected and which ones should be infringed upon. Liberals have long wanted and supported federal laws to infringe on the second amendment, all the while saying that Roe vs. Wade was sort of like the 2nd A. only protecting abortion rights rather than gun rights.
 

Stevie-Ray

New member
here's another thing you've gotta understand, even if I wanted to take it away, I couldn't get it done. I don't have the votes in Congress.
Hmmm.......makes it sound like he's already checked on that. Shouldn't he have said wouldn't?
 
Top