The Truth about Obama and Guns

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by Marlin, Apr 7, 2009.

  1. Marlin

    Marlin *TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor*

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    13,846
    Location:
    At SouthernMoss' side forever!
    Obama's 'Get the Guns' Plan Goes Global

    By Bobby Eberle On April 6, 2009 at 6:41 am

    Barack Obama has a history of ignoring the Constitution's Second Amendment. Over and over and over again, he has supported measures that would make it harder for citizens to possess firearms and easier for criminals to gain the upper hand. Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder is of the same mold and has argued for gun control measures at every turn.

    Now, we come to Obama's debut on the world stage with the recent G-20 Summit. Yes, he pushed America's new "spend, spend, spend and tax, tax, tax" strategy on the world, but he also used the opportunity to take his "get the guns" philosophy to all nations. Obama called for the U.S. to take the lead in ending all nuclear weapons. This, just like his policies on gun control, would make America less safe and more vulnerable to rogue leaders around the world.

    Here's a little background on the Obama/Holder gun record. As noted by OnTheIssues.org, Obama has a record of promoting gun control.
    Hale DeMar, a 52-year-old Wilmette resident, was arrested and charged with misdemeanor violations for shooting, in the shoulder and leg, a burglar who broke into his home not once, but twice. Cook County prosecutors dropped all charges against DeMar.

    In March 2004, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 2165, a law introduced in response to DeMar's case, with provisions designed to assert a right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions, such that self-defense requirements would be viewed to take precedence over local ordinances against handgun possession. The measure passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20. Barack Obama was one of the 20 state senators voting against the measure.
    In another instance cited by the web site:
    Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, "No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns."

    Actually, Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

    35. Do you support state legislation to:

    a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.

    b. ban assault weapons? Yes.

    c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

    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."
    I could go on and on with Obama and the gun topic, but the real point is that this same philosophy of restricting the rights of citizens and, in turn, making it easier for criminals to gain the upper hand was put on display on a global level this past week. Obama took to the stage in the Czech Republic of Prague to call for an end to nuclear weapons. Of course, this would shift more power and leverage away from the United States and into the hands of imperialist nations and unstable leaders.

    As noted in the story Obama outlines sweeping goal of nuclear-free world, Obama "said all nations must strive to rid the world of nuclear arms and that the U.S. had a 'moral responsibility' to lead because no other country has used one."

    A moral responsibility? This sounds eerily similar to calls for the U.S. to "apologize" for slavery or other wrongs of the past. Rather than moving on and building up relationships, liberals constantly want to paint reminders of how bad things are (or were) in order to have leverage over a group or nation. So, America is supposed to take the lead on making ourselves less safe simply because we are the only ones who have used nuclear weapons. We are supposed to apologize for this? Isn't it the core job of the federal government to keep our citizens safe. Does Obama forget how many American lives were saved by ending the war early?

    "This goal will not be reached quickly -- perhaps not in my lifetime," Obama said. "We "must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, 'Yes, we can.'"

    Yes, we can? Yes, we can what? Have "law abiding" countries get rid of their nuclear weapons. What happens when one of those countries is no longer friendly and decides to invade another country... thrusting an entire region into conventional war. This of course would be thousands or tens of thousands of lives at risk. Did it ever occur to Obama and company that situations like this are less likely because of the nuclear threat?

    Obama's "feel good" rhetoric is designed for one thing. To make him sound like the kumbaya leader and to make rogue dictators feel good.

    The leaders at the G-20 Summit more or less rejected Obama's tax and spend plan for the world, and they should reject this rhetoric as well.

    Taking guns or nukes out of the hands of law-abiding citizens or nations is unconstitutional for guns and ridiculous policy for nukes.

    Oh yes, and as Obama was preparing for his speech, what was North Korea doing? Kim Jong Il made good on his pledge to launch a long-range missile.

    Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya... oh Lord, kumbaya.


    © 2009 GOPUSA, The Loft.
     
  2. Teejay9

    Teejay9 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,255
    Location:
    Southwest Corner of the US, "Where no stinking fen
    I amazed he hasn't called for reparations for slavery. But, then again, he's only been prez for three months. I'm sure that's on his agenda. They really picked a winner here. To me, it sounds as though he's still running for president. I think that some of the more sane Democrats are starting to wonder about his intentions. Yes, a nuke free world would be nice, but it ain't gonna happen, bro'. TJ
     

  3. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,717
    Location:
    Akron, Ohio
  4. bcj1755

    bcj1755 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    4,357
    Location:
    A wretched hive of scum and villiany
    What we need is a douchebag free world...because then we'd be free of Barry:p:D
     
  5. Teejay9

    Teejay9 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,255
    Location:
    Southwest Corner of the US, "Where no stinking fen
  6. topper

    topper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    748
    Location:
    deep in the woods
    how in the world did this idiot get elected, if no one voted for him?




    Keep both barrels loaded!
     
  7. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,717
    Location:
    Akron, Ohio
    In our relatively small world of thinking Americans it doesn't seem like anyone voted for him but rest assured the idiots are out there and all around us. We have a real fight on our hands.
     
  8. bcj1755

    bcj1755 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    4,357
    Location:
    A wretched hive of scum and villiany
    There were enough brainwashed, kool-aid drinking, mind numbed, sheeple out there that obeyed everythign the TV told them to get Barry "voted" in. Of course, ACORN massaging votes helped out too.:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
     
  9. carver

    carver Moderator Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    30,038
    Location:
    DAV, Deep in the Pineywoods of E. Texas!
    I used to see lots of Obama stickers on the cars in our area, not so any more? It must be that some of these folks who voted for this nut case have started to wise up?
     
  10. KING64

    KING64 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2007
    Messages:
    517
    Location:
    Washington State
    No normal person would wish their own life away. Having said that, I have never been more comfortable with my age than I am right now. I am thankful to have been born at a time when we were all relatively free to go about our business as long as we did not violate reasonable laws of the land. The way things are going now my grandchildren will never know the freedom we once enjoyed.

    Our Constitution is being eroded and one of the basic tenets we have always held, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness," is under attack.

    Am I being an unreasonable, paranoid idiot? I don't think so.
     
  11. Marlin

    Marlin *TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor*

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    13,846
    Location:
    At SouthernMoss' side forever!
    I couldn't agree more, King. :( :(
     
  12. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,717
    Location:
    Akron, Ohio
    Dittos
     
  13. alhefner

    alhefner New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Messages:
    205
    Location:
    Reno, NV
    The way I see things going, not only will firearms be outlawed, much of what we do as simple recreation will be highly regulated. No longer will we be able to simply pack up our camping gear and head out to the wilderness. No longer will hunting and fishing be a normal part of life.

    Soon, all forms of self defense will be against the law. Not just armed defense but any defense other than running away screaming.

    Camping and hiking will soon be subject to "limited permits" and other restrictions. To see more about this, take a look at the website of the "wilderness project".

    I am planning to do as much outdoor exploration as I can before this all becomes fact. I want to be able to document what we "used to be allowed" for future generations. I want them to see what the people of the US allowed to happen.