http://azstarnet.com/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html

When I saw the headline for this article, I thought "oh shit, here we go." But after reading it, there is nothing I disagree with. I thought for sure that he would use the Arizona tragedy as a reason to increase gun control and pass new legislation. I'm all for enforcing the current laws that we have to stop people from buying firearms who should not be able to buy them.

Obama has a way of writing words that people agree with, but when the details come out...it doesn't match the message. ObamaKare for example.

He still equates gun ownership with hunting and sporting activities. The 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, gaming, fishing, target practice, nor 4th of July celebrations. Yet, if he says it enough, people will believe it is so. I'm good with not letting criminals have guns. Makes sense. But I also have to believe there are volumes of laws and regulations against such an act. So, why do we need even MORE legislation?

"That an unbalanced man shouldn't be able to buy a gun so easily" is surely a slippery slope to keeping guns away from those deemed "unbalanced". Who is to define this word? Is it to be anyone that didn't qualify for the military? There's lots of reasons why people don't qualify for the military...are they all adorned with Obama's paint sprayer language? Could someone with opposite beliefs be construed as "unbalanced"...say someone dressed up in Tea Party regalia? Once again, Obama believes that there is an all seeing federal entity that should define who gets what and what is fair for all. This entity used to be, "We the People", but he doesn't really care for that old fashioned lingo, now does he?

He likes to lean hard on the Tucson tragedy whenever he can. I'd like to think if there was an armed militia in attendance, Mr. Loughner would be pushin up daisies instead of murdering innocent children and elected officials.

BGFalcons82;712044 wrote:Obama has a way of writing words that people agree with, but when the details come out...it doesn't match the message. ObamaKare for example.

He still equates gun ownership with hunting and sporting activities. The 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, gaming, fishing, target practice, nor 4th of July celebrations. Yet, if he says it enough, people will believe it is so. I'm good with not letting criminals have guns. Makes sense. But I also have to believe there are volumes of laws and regulations against such an act. So, why do we need even MORE legislation?

"That an unbalanced man shouldn't be able to buy a gun so easily" is surely a slippery slope to keeping guns away from those deemed "unbalanced". Who is to define this word? Is it to be anyone that didn't qualify for the military? There's lots of reasons why people don't qualify for the military...are they all adorned with Obama's paint sprayer language? Could someone with opposite beliefs be construed as "unbalanced"...say someone dressed up in Tea Party regalia? Once again, Obama believes that there is an all seeing federal entity that should define who gets what and what is fair for all. This entity used to be, "We the People", but he doesn't really care for that old fashioned lingo, now does he?

He likes to lean hard on the Tucson tragedy whenever he can. I'd like to think if there was an armed militia in attendance, Mr. Loughner would be pushin up daisies instead of murdering innocent children and elected officials.

+1

Loughner broke multiple laws but somehow adding a couple more would have stopped it? The only folks abiding by the laws are not murdering people in the first place. And to believe making some gun illegal will stop crime is laughable. One needs to look no further than drugs for an example or alcohol for a past example. When guns are illegal only outlaws will have guns. The problem with slippery slopes is once you start the slide it's very tough to stop. BO is no dummy. He knows all he needs is the small in to start the slide. Talking the quiet mellow "commonsense" talk gets him his in. 10 years from now we end up with a fedgov that only needs to use their doctor to declare citizens "unbalanced" so they can swiftly strip them of their right to bear arms.

Avoid the start of the slide! Plain and simple enforce the laws that already exist.

Gun control laws are so unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Why can't states handle that shit on their own?

Read about half-way down the page: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30884011/ns/business-personal_finance/

This bill had primarily been about credit cards, but it included gun law reform that allowed carrying loaded firearms in national parks, which wasn't really a secret about the bill. Apparently, Obama at least thought reforming credit card companies was more important than prohibiting the carrying of loaded firearms in national parks.

This happened awhile ago, I believe, as well. Has President Obama done anything "anti-gun?" Not said. Done. I'm genuinely asking.

O-Trap;712329 wrote:Read about half-way down the page: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30884011/ns/business-personal_finance/

This bill had primarily been about credit cards, but it included gun law reform that allowed carrying loaded firearms in national parks, which wasn't really a secret about the bill. Apparently, Obama at least thought reforming credit card companies was more important than prohibiting the carrying of loaded firearms in national parks.

This happened awhile ago, I believe, as well. Has President Obama done anything "anti-gun?" Not said. Done. I'm genuinely asking.

Just a quick search but I have read many articles about his anti-gun beliefs. Clear back through his college days he has been anti-gun.

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=16427

* 1994 to 2001 – Obama was on the board of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation. This foundation is the largest funding source for radical anti-gun groups in the country.
* 1996 – Obama supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.
* 1999 – Obama proposed a 500 percent increase in the excise taxes on firearms and ammunition. This tax would effectively punish gun owners for buying guns and ammunition.
* 2003 – Obama voted in support of legislation that would have banned privately owned hunting shotguns, target rifles and black powder rifles in Illinois.
* 2004 – Obama voted against legislation intended to protect homeowners from prosecution in cases where they used a firearm to halt a home invasion.

O-Trap;712329 wrote:Read about half-way down the page: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30884011/ns/business-personal_finance/

This bill had primarily been about credit cards, but it included gun law reform that allowed carrying loaded firearms in national parks, which wasn't really a secret about the bill. Apparently, Obama at least thought reforming credit card companies was more important than prohibiting the carrying of loaded firearms in national parks.

This happened awhile ago, I believe, as well. Has President Obama done anything "anti-gun?" Not said. Done. I'm genuinely asking.

He knows it can be political suicide. It seems like he tosses teasers out there, then when the public reacts, he pulls back.

LJ;712462 wrote:He knows it can be political suicide. It seems like he tosses teasers out there, then when the public reacts, he pulls back.

That's kind of the inclination I get. Seems like he's against guns, but he knows it would be political suicide, so for practicality's sake, he functions like he's pro-gun, even when his ideology is against that very view.

tsst_fballfan;712460 wrote:* 1994 to 2001 – Obama was on the board of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation. This foundation is the largest funding source for radical anti-gun groups in the country.
* 1996 – Obama supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.
* 1999 – Obama proposed a 500 percent increase in the excise taxes on firearms and ammunition. This tax would effectively punish gun owners for buying guns and ammunition.
* 2003 – Obama voted in support of legislation that would have banned privately owned hunting shotguns, target rifles and black powder rifles in Illinois.
* 2004 – Obama voted against legislation intended to protect homeowners from prosecution in cases where they used a firearm to halt a home invasion.

Absolutely ridiculous.

It just seems weird to be an expert of constitutional law and to vote that ^^^ way like Obama does.

Tobias Fünke;712245 wrote:Gun control laws are so unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Why can't states handle that shit on their own?

+1. This is yet another thing that should be solely placed under the power of the state.

Tobias Fünke;712245 wrote:Gun control laws are so unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Why can't states handle that shit on their own?

dwccrew;712768 wrote:+1. This is yet another thing that should be solely placed under the power of the state.

While I don't completely disagree, if someone is too loony to buy guns in Ohio I don't really want them driving across the border to a different state to get them. If we're going to have a background check I think it's a good idea to have them communicate that information so it's nation wide.

O-Trap;712511 wrote:That's kind of the inclination I get. Seems like he's against guns, but he knows it would be political suicide, so for practicality's sake, he functions like he's pro-gun, even when his ideology is against that very view.

If he is re-elected watch out. His true ideology will reign once his term is decided! If memory serves while at the Joyce Foundation he participated in writing legal briefs on gun control that were intended to sway court decisions in Illinois.

tsst_fballfan;712799 wrote:If he is re-elected watch out. His true ideology will reign once his term is decided! If memory serves while at the Joyce Foundation he participated in writing legal briefs on gun control that were intended to sway court decisions in Illinois.

I could see that in Illinois. However, I think he knows there would be a shitstorm raised if he tried to do that on a nationwide level, regardless of term.

Needless to say, I don't plan on voting for him, but I don't think he'd have a prayer of getting something like that to fly anyway, as long as both houses of Congress aren't suckling at his tit.

I think that if you never shot a gun, been shot or handle a weapon in training class shut your pie hole... because you're single sided like a target

Plribthh?

O-Trap;712804 wrote:I could see that in Illinois. However, I think he knows there would be a shitstorm raised if he tried to do that on a nationwide level, regardless of term.

Needless to say, I don't plan on voting for him, but I don't think he'd have a prayer of getting something like that to fly anyway, as long as both houses of Congress aren't suckling at his tit.

The thing that scares me is I believe he wants to make his mark on history. I think once the concern over re-election has come to pass he will embark on the creation of his legacy with utter disregard to shitstorms. A right leaning congress may be the only barrier. And compromise may be the only in he needs for a subtle step now that snowballs into something much larger later. For example bills that have been proposed in the past like the requirement for a license to manufacturer. Sounds reasonable on the surface right. But it was to cover things like reloading ammo which hundreds of thousands of individuals do. Or changing the grips on your gun etc. Then there are those that have already slipped by. For example SBR and SBS.

Personally I have no problem with criminals or the mentally unstable not having access to firearms. That said I would have huge issue with any legislation infringing my rights as a law abiding citizen in any way. I would take even more issue with the fedgov having any input whatsoever into the declaration of unstable. This would be a slippery slope scenario IMHO.

FatHobbit;712773 wrote:While I don't completely disagree, if someone is too loony to buy guns in Ohio I don't really want them driving across the border to a different state to get them. If we're going to have a background check I think it's a good idea to have them communicate that information so it's nation wide.

I'm pretty sure you have to be a resident within the state you are purchasing the gun, at least for handguns. I live in Ohio, I can't go to Michigan and buy a handgun (legally). I'd have to have a licensed Ohio dealer buy it for me and have it delivered to their store. If I am too loony to do so, that dealer will refuse to have the gun delivered and I can't get my gun.

Again, leave it to the states to handle this.

dwccrew;712899 wrote:I'm pretty sure you have to be a resident within the state you are purchasing the gun, at least for handguns.

Can someone verify that for me? I've never tried to buy a gun out of state, so maybe that's true, but I've never heard that before.

FatHobbit;713008 wrote:Can someone verify that for me? I've never tried to buy a gun out of state, so maybe that's true, but I've never heard that before.

It's true. You have to be a resident of the state you are buying in to buy any gun

tsst_fballfan;712799 wrote:If he is re-elected watch out. His true ideology will reign once his term is decided! If memory serves while at the Joyce Foundation he participated in writing legal briefs on gun control that were intended to sway court decisions in Illinois.

I remember hearing in 2008 that Obama would take everyone's guns away if he were elected. Now you want to keep that myth running for 2012. What happens if Obama is re-elected and none of your "chicken little" prophecy comes to pass?


This is a bullshit issue, always has been and always will be. The gun lobby has been saying things like this for years and it never happens. The simple truth is that the gun lobby has too much money and too many of our elected officials in their pocket. Like any other special interest group, all they have to do is pull the strings and let the dance begin.

stlouiedipalma;713011 wrote:I remember hearing in 2008 that Obama would take everyone's guns away if he were elected. Now you want to keep that myth running for 2012. What happens if Obama is re-elected and none of your "chicken little" prophecy comes to pass?


This is a bullshit issue, always has been and always will be. The gun lobby has been saying things like this for years and it never happens. The simple truth is that the gun lobby has too much money and too many of our elected officials in their pocket. Like any other special interest group, all they have to do is pull the strings and let the dance begin.

So it never happened in 1994?

I don't think Obama will do it even in a second term. I think he knows it would ruin his perceived legacy for many in the population.

LJ;713012 wrote:So it never happened in 1994?

Not to the degree that some would have you think.

Bottom line: I can get a gun if I want one, and I can get it legally. End of discussion.

When I cannot make that statement, then you can say that gun control is here.

stlouiedipalma;713021 wrote:Not to the degree that some would have you think.

Bottom line: I can get a gun if I want one, and I can get it legally. End of discussion.

When I cannot make that statement, then you can say that gun control is here.

I don't need others to tell me what was banned, I understand it fully. It was a ridiculous arbitrary ban that infringed on our right to own guns, just because they looked scary. If you wanted an AR-15, you could not go buy one. Tell me how I cannot say we had gun control?