Obama and Guns

[aflineman]

If he started repealing firearms decisions, regulations, and legislation that infringes on the second amendment, I would be impressed. Until then, same old same old, and I am not impressed. But then again, some people still believe that we live in a democracy and have a free market.

 

[bnr32gtr]

#1: 1959, quit while you're behind and I wouldn't suggest coming to an NWFA Meet and Great after starting this thread! You might not like how you are treated. Just sayin'

#2: Learn to use Google. Google is your friend. I typed in "Obama and Guns" just a minute ago and this was the first one to come up: http://www.gunbanobama.com/

#3: Here are a couple of quotes from a FoxNews article, "For example, when Obama ran for the Illinois state senate the political group, Independent Voters of Illinois (IVI), asked him if he supported a “ban [on] the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns” and he responded “yes.”

In addition, from 1998 to 2001, Obama was on the board of directors for the Joyce Foundation, which funded such anti-gun groups as the Violence Policy Center, the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, and Handgun Free America. Both the Violence Policy Center and Handgun Free America, as its name suggests, are in favor of a complete ban on handguns. During his tenure on the board, the Joyce Foundation was probably the major funder of pro-control research in the United States.

In fact, I knew Obama during the mid-1990s, and his answers to IVI’s question on guns fit well with the Obama that I knew. Indeed, the first time I introduced myself to him he said “Oh, you are the gun guy.”

I responded “Yes, I guess so.” He simply responded that “I don’t believe that people should be able to own guns.”

Another quote from OBAMA'S WEBSITE: Obama’s website only recognizes two legitimate purposes for civilian ownership of guns: “hunting and target shooting.” The notion that people might want to protect themselves when the police are not around isn’t something that he sees as legitimate.

1959- What makes you think he'll be any different now that he's in the black house?

Hmm... If this isn't BoltHoldOpen(BHO), then I don't know who it is: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-administration-revives-assault-weapons-debate-2009-02-26.html

Notice this was posted back in February. If you stopped cherry picking comments and what you call, "facts", you might just be able to see why we are all so nervous about this administration.

If you call yourself a gun lover, you should have never started, or continued this thread. That's not just my opinion, I can say that for sure!

Oh, another good site with great information(that I'm sure you won't read):
<broken link removed>

A DIRECT QUOTE FROM OBAMA: "My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban as soon as I take office. Within 90 days, we will go back after kitchen table dealers, and work to end the gun show and internet sales loopholes. In the first year, I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."

If that's not enough for you, I'd say give us all your guns and move to England where you'll be really happy.

 

[swoop]

#1: 1959, quit while you're behind and I wouldn't suggest coming to an NWFA Meet and Great after starting this thread! You might not like how you are treated. Just sayin'

#2: Learn to use Google. Google is your friend. I typed in "Obama and Guns" just a minute ago and this was the first one to come up: http://www.gunbanobama.com/

#3: Here are a couple of quotes from a FoxNews article, "For example, when Obama ran for the Illinois state senate the political group, Independent Voters of Illinois (IVI), asked him if he supported a “ban [on] the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns” and he responded “yes.”

In addition, from 1998 to 2001, Obama was on the board of directors for the Joyce Foundation, which funded such anti-gun groups as the Violence Policy Center, the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, and Handgun Free America. Both the Violence Policy Center and Handgun Free America, as its name suggests, are in favor of a complete ban on handguns. During his tenure on the board, the Joyce Foundation was probably the major funder of pro-control research in the United States.

In fact, I knew Obama during the mid-1990s, and his answers to IVI’s question on guns fit well with the Obama that I knew. Indeed, the first time I introduced myself to him he said “Oh, you are the gun guy.”

I responded “Yes, I guess so.” He simply responded that “I don’t believe that people should be able to own guns.”

Another quote from OBAMA'S WEBSITE: Obama’s website only recognizes two legitimate purposes for civilian ownership of guns: “hunting and target shooting.” The notion that people might want to protect themselves when the police are not around isn’t something that he sees as legitimate.

1959- What makes you think he'll be any different now that he's in the black house?

Hmm... If this isn't BoltHoldOpen(BHO), then I don't know who it is: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-administration-revives-assault-weapons-debate-2009-02-26.html

Notice this was posted back in February. If you stopped cherry picking comments and what you call, "facts", you might just be able to see why we are all so nervous about this administration.

If you call yourself a gun lover, you should have never started, or continued this thread. That's not just my opinion, I can say that for sure!

Oh, another good site with great information(that I'm sure you won't read):
<broken link removed>

A DIRECT QUOTE FROM OBAMA: "My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban as soon as I take office. Within 90 days, we will go back after kitchen table dealers, and work to end the gun show and internet sales loopholes. In the first year, I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."

If that's not enough for you, I'd say give us all your guns and move to England where you'll be really happy.

Well said Mike, and thank's for all the research. If he doesn't get it after this read, he never will.

 

[eriknemily]

Come on guys. I still haven't seen one specific piece of legislation that Obama himself has written to restrict our gun rights. I don't care what he said while campaigning. I don't care what he did while in the Illinois legislature. I don't care what he did while organizing communities. I don't care what he's said since he's taken office. He has not written or proposed any anti-gun policies. CEF1959 has a point. Nobody has adequately answered his specific question. At this point in time I don't think anybody can positively answer his question. However, in my opinion it is still hard to teach an old dog new tricks. And obama... well he smells like a wolf to me

 

[Monkeyman]

Come on guys. I still haven't seen one specific piece of legislation that Obama himself has written to restrict our gun rights. I don't care what he said while campaigning. I don't care what he did while in the Illinois legislature. I don't care what he did while organizing communities. I don't care what he's said since he's taken office. He has not written or proposed any anti-gun policies. CEF1959 has a point. Nobody has adequately answered his specific question. At this point in time I don't think anybody can positively answer his question. However, in my opinion it is still hard to teach an old dog new tricks. And obama... well he smells like a wolf to me

Let me ask you and CEF1959 a question, then:

Suppose we stipulate that Obama himself has not authored one piece of anti-gun legislation since he took office. True enough. Are you guys (eriknemily and CEF1959) therefore concluding that since he hasn't, as president, authored any legislation, that he won't in the future, or that he is indeed no threat to gunowners?

If that is indeed your point, I must point out that as a general rule the POTUS does not write legislation. That point was made in an earlier post. So we are debating frivolously. Presidents don't write laws, Congress does. The function of the POTUS in the legislative process is to sign legislation, not write it. So what's the point? Are you concluding that if Rep McCarthy (NY) or a notorious anti-gun racist hack like Bobby Rush ( a close political ally of Obama, even if you refuse to believe it, who HAS authored such legislation) writes a gun-grab bill, Obama won't sign it? I'll bet you or CEF a week's pay that if Obama gets an anti-gun bill from Congress, he'll sign. Let's put up the cash now, and let Joey hold it. What's your point?

Ronald Reagan didn't write the tax-cut legislation that spawned the bull market of the 80's, but he signed it. Can we conclude that since Reagan didn't write the legislation, he was not a tax-cutter? Ludicrous.

I suppose that CEF1959 is thinking that since he can't prove to himself that Obama is anti-gun, that he isn't. That's not a fact, it's a conclusion that in my opinion is based on faulty logic. It ignores a large body of evidence that you, eriknemily, dismiss with a wave of your hand. You are implying that history is meaningless, an idea that doesn't deserve comment. I'm guessing you and CEF are both relatively young, because saying that history doesn't matter is stupefyingly naive. I am not trying to insult, I am astonished that a thinking person could make such a claim with a straight face. But your logic leads to that exact spot.

But I don't really know what CEF is thinking, since he has disappeared from the thread. I'd love to hear his answer to my question, though.

 

[westernsky20]

When the president submits a budget to congress is that a form of legislation or a writen request of what he wants in the budget from congress?
Thankyou

 

[eriknemily]

Let me ask you [eriknemily] and CEF1959 a question, then:

Suppose we stipulate that Obama himself has not authored one piece of anti-gun legislation since he took office. True enough. Are you guys (eriknemily and CEF1959) therefore concluding that since he hasn't, as president, authored any legislation, that he won't in the future, or that he is indeed no threat to gunowners?

Easy Monkeyman (no that's not an insult). My entire post we tongue in cheek. Except for the part about him being a wolf Obama, in my not so humble opinion, is a socialist goon. When a perceived opportunity comes a long he and his liberal congressional buddies (which unfortunately includes a lot of republicans) will without doubt try to push through anti-gun legislation. It's hard to push their radical agenda on citizens that are armed to the teeth without fear of an uprising.
Believe me, I'm on your side, not CEF's. He's right in that Obama hasn't written any legislation himself since he's taken office. However, looking at his past record should tell us what to expect. A tiger is a tiger and doesn't change it's stripes.

 

[eriknemily]

I suppose that CEF1959 is thinking that since he can't prove to himself that Obama is anti-gun, that he isn't. That's not a fact, it's a conclusion that in my opinion is based on faulty logic. It ignores a large body of evidence that you, eriknemily, dismiss with a wave of your hand. You are implying that history is meaningless, an idea that doesn't deserve comment. I'm guessing you and CEF are both relatively young, because saying that history doesn't matter is stupefyingly naive. I am not trying to insult, I am astonished that a thinking person could make such a claim with a straight face. But your logic leads to that exact spot.

Yes I am young, 26. I hope I clarified in my last post that I'm not at all agreeing with CEF's belligerence on this topic. History does matter. Obviously my scope of remembering doesn't go back very far but I did pay a little bit of attention during history class. When I look at the direction this country is headed I think of the roman empire and it's collapse. I think we are on a course for disaster in this country. Given what's happened in the last year alone I think it's obvious that this country is in grave trouble. We are in debt up to our eyeballs and their is no plan to rectify the problem. As the world gets into more financial trouble they will be knocking on the USA's door to collect. The elites (that includes the bankers on wall st.) in d.c. will not have to worry about any noise of a revolution when they have to come to the citizens of this country to come up with payments on those debts if the citizens are unarmed. As a well known talk show personality says, "Follow the money." Anyway, that conspiracy theorist rant was to get to this point. If a situation of that magnitude were to happen. What would an unarmed citizen do when the state malitia came? Call them names and throw sticks at them. As I believe you have as you signature monkey man, the 2nd amendment guarantees all the other!

I am astonished that a thinking person could make such a claim with a straight face.

Believe me, I'm a thinking person that's been smiling the whole time I've been reading this thread.

 

[swoop]

Let me ask you and CEF1959 a question, then:

Suppose we stipulate that Obama himself has not authored one piece of anti-gun legislation since he took office. True enough. Are you guys (eriknemily and CEF1959) therefore concluding that since he hasn't, as president, authored any legislation, that he won't in the future, or that he is indeed no threat to gunowners?

If that is indeed your point, I must point out that as a general rule the POTUS does not write legislation. That point was made in an earlier post. So we are debating frivolously. Presidents don't write laws, Congress does. The function of the POTUS in the legislative process is to sign legislation, not write it. So what's the point? Are you concluding that if Rep McCarthy (NY) or a notorious anti-gun racist hack like Bobby Rush ( a close political ally of Obama, even if you refuse to believe it, who HAS authored such legislation) writes a gun-grab bill, Obama won't sign it? I'll bet you or CEF a week's pay that if Obama gets an anti-gun bill from Congress, he'll sign. Let's put up the cash now, and let Joey hold it. What's your point?

Ronald Reagan didn't write the tax-cut legislation that spawned the bull market of the 80's, but he signed it. Can we conclude that since Reagan didn't write the legislation, he was not a tax-cutter? Ludicrous.

I suppose that CEF1959 is thinking that since he can't prove to himself that Obama is anti-gun, that he isn't. That's not a fact, it's a conclusion that in my opinion is based on faulty logic. It ignores a large body of evidence that you, eriknemily, dismiss with a wave of your hand. You are implying that history is meaningless, an idea that doesn't deserve comment. I'm guessing you and CEF are both relatively young, because saying that history doesn't matter is stupefyingly naive. I am not trying to insult, I am astonished that a thinking person could make such a claim with a straight face. But your logic leads to that exact spot.

But I don't really know what CEF is thinking, since he has disappeared from the thread. I'd love to hear his answer to my question, though.

He far... then left the room, but the smell is still here.

 

[eriknemily]

He far... then left the room, but the smell is still here.

That's about it. What else are bored kids gonna do. Stir up trouble and when it gets too hot high tail it outta there. He just wanted to get peoples hackles up and it worked. Kudos for him

 

[eriknemily]

When the president submits a budget to congress is that a form of legislation or a written request of what he wants in the budget from congress?
Thankyou

You got me on the one westernsky. I don't know if that is technically legislation or not

 

[Monkeyman]

Yes I am young, 26. I hope I clarified in my last post that I'm not at all agreeing with CEF's belligerence on this topic. History does matter. Obviously my scope of remembering doesn't go back very far but I did pay a little bit of attention during history class. When I look at the direction this country is headed I think of the roman empire and it's collapse. I think we are on a course for disaster in this country. Given what's happened in the last year alone I think it's obvious that this country is in grave trouble. We are in debt up to our eyeballs and their is no plan to rectify the problem. As the world gets into more financial trouble they will be knocking on the USA's door to collect. The elites (that includes the bankers on wall st.) in d.c. will not have to worry about any noise of a revolution when they have to come to the citizens of this country to come up with payments on those debts if the citizens are unarmed. As a well known talk show personality says, "Follow the money." Anyway, that conspiracy theorist rant was to get to this point. If a situation of that magnitude were to happen. What would an unarmed citizen do when the state malitia came? Call them names and throw sticks at them. As I believe you have as you signature monkey man, the 2nd amendment guarantees all the other!


Believe me, I'm a thinking person that's been smiling the whole time I've been reading this thread.

I don't think CEF is being belligerent, I think he's just trying to stir the pot a bit, and get folks thinking. Fair enough. My problem is that a lot of "progressives" don't really do a lot of thinking, they just soak up NPR and the NYT and puke it back up at parties to sound cool and get laid. Not a whole lot of real logical discourse going on in our educational "institutions" these days. It's brainwashing, because the radical freaks who were burning college campuses in the 60's are now the "intellectual" establishment. Those who can, do; those who can't, teach. (and those who can't teach, teach gym ) Look at how conservative speakers are treated on campuses. Shouted down by angry mobs. Wait, that's what conservative wackos do, like the villagers in Frankenstein. Jerry Rubin, Billy Ayers, and the Yippies weren't throwing flaming bags of excrement at police in 1968, they were debating like adults. Now they are in Washington, running the county (into the ground).

It's hard to actually try and debate, with facts and logic, people who substitute emotion for fact. But I'm just an ignorant, pitchfork-waving Bubba, right BillCH?

I think CEF's logic is based on "I can't see it, so it doesn't exist". If, indeed, he is truly suggesting that BHO is not anti-2A. As I said, CEF has dropped out of the thread, so I can only speculate what he's thinking.

 

[Trlsmn]

I don't think CEF is being belligerent, I think he's just trying to stir the pot a bit, and get folks thinking. Fair enough. My problem is that a lot of "progressives" don't really do a lot of thinking, they just soak up NPR and the NYT and puke it back up at parties to sound cool and get laid. Not a whole lot of real logical discourse going on in our educational "institutions" these days. It's brainwashing, because the radical freaks who were burning college campuses in the 60's are now the "intellectual" establishment. Those who can, do; those who can't, teach. (and those who can't teach, teach gym ) Look at how conservative speakers are treated on campuses. Shouted down by angry mobs. Wait, that's what conservative wackos do, like the villagers in Frankenstein. Jerry Rubin, Billy Ayers, and the Yippies weren't throwing flaming bags of excrement at police in 1968, they were debating like adults. Now they are in Washington, running the county (into the ground).

It's hard to actually try and debate, with facts and logic, people who substitute emotion for fact. But I'm just an ignorant, pitchfork-waving Bubba, right BillCH?

I think CEF's logic is based on "I can't see it, so it doesn't exist". If, indeed, he is truly suggesting that BHO is not anti-2A. As I said, CEF has dropped out of the thread, so I can only speculate what he's thinking.

If I had to give these phonies a name it would be "Poser"

 

[CEF1959]

I think CEF's logic is based on "I can't see it, so it doesn't exist". If, indeed, he is truly suggesting that BHO is not anti-2A. As I said, CEF has dropped out of the thread, so I can only speculate what he's thinking.

I'm still here, and I've been enjoying reading the posts. My point wasn't that Obama is a Second Amendment supporter (though I have to say that labelling someone "anti-SA" because he doesn't share YOUR understanding of the SA is hyperbole). I think he's got his own understanding of the SA and respects it as he understands it.

My point (again) is that I'm looking for some Obama Administration proposal to restrict your gun rights. If not, the current hysteria ("Obama's coming for your guns!!!) is just that -- hysteria.

What's been fun about reading this thread is how so much of this group feels so threatened by the question, like someone has attacked their religion. So threatened, in fact, that folks resort to tossing out personal insults at a strong proponent of gun rights and a member of this forum. Anyone who even questions a small part of the ideology must be attacked? Sad.

 

[CEF1959]

Suppose we stipulate that Obama himself has not authored one piece of anti-gun legislation since he took office. True enough. Are you guys (eriknemily and CEF1959) therefore concluding that since he hasn't, as president, authored any legislation, that he won't in the future, or that he is indeed no threat to gunowners?

I accept your (correct) stipulation. Answer to your question is "no."

 

[CEF1959]

#1: 1959, quit while you're behind and I wouldn't suggest coming to an NWFA Meet and Great after starting this thread! You might not like how you are treated. Just sayin'

[snip]

1959- What makes you think he'll be any different now that he's in the black house?

This kind of threat, followed by a racist remark, is really uncalled for. At least among people capable of adult conversation.

 

[coctailer]

Obama's own website states that he will support re-upping the Assault Weapons Ban.

That is as close of an answer that is possible without doing ones own extensive research into ALL of the bills proposed to the house and who specifically introduced them.