Obama on gun control

[gabosaurus]

Forget all the rumor and right-wing exaggerations. Here is the Obama stance on gun legislation.
Hint: You probably won't agree.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

[hjmick]

That's one.

[crin63]

Forget all the rumor and right-wing exaggerations. Here is the Obama stance on gun legislation.
Hint: You probably won't agree.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

You're right I don't agree. He's a typical Liberal that will say or do anything to get elected.

Americans should be able to own any firearm they want, as many firearms as they want, buy as many as they want at one time and its absolutely no ones business but their own. If they wanna park a tank in their front yard go for it, this is America.

This is America and its our right!

[Little-Acorn]

Forget all the rumor and right-wing exaggerations. Here is the Obama stance on gun legislation.
Hint: You probably won't agree.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

For some reason, gabby doesn't ask us to forget all the LEFT-wing exaggerations. I think I can guess why. :lame2:

Back to the subject:
In the first group of questions gabby links to, Obama makes the statement:

"We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands."

I feel the need to ask him: "How?"

Because it looks to me like a flagrantly false statement.

All government can do, is make laws. But criminals are people who don't obey laws, remember? There are already lots of laws on the booksrestricting or "preventing" criminals from getting guns. But guess what: Criminals are getting guns freely and easily, every day, even today. In fact, thanks to those laws, criminals can get them more easily than law-abiding people can... because the laws only restrict the law-abiding. Isn't that result the exact opposite of what you intended the laws to accomplish, Mr. Obama?

Please tell me that WASN'T what you intended to accomplish, Mr. Obama.

No, Mr. Obama, we can't make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands.

And since that's true, NOW what's your stance on so-called "gun control" laws, Mr. Obama? Do the facts change your opinions at all, on whether we should make laws restricting guns? Since all they do, is restrict or disarm law-abiding people and leave them to the mercy of the still-armed criminals?

Mr. Obama?

(Board liberals please feel free to chime in with your own answers to this question.)

Since we CAN'T make sure criminals don't get guns, the entire premise of "gun control" laws is discredited. The people making those laws, will tell you every time, that the purpose is to disarm the criminals. But the laws don't. They only restrict or disarm the law-abiding.

When will the leftist big-government types (like Barack Obama and many others) start taking this into account when making laws about guns?

[hjmick]

For some reason, gabby doesn't ask us to forget all the LEFT-wing exaggerations. I think I can guess why. :lame2:

Back to the subject:
In the first group of questions gabby links to, Obama makes the statement:

"We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands."

I feel the need to ask him: "How?"

Because it looks to me like a flagrantly false statement.

All government can do, is make laws. But criminals are people who don't obey laws, remember? There are already lots of laws on the booksrestricting or "preventing" criminals from getting guns. But guess what: Criminals are getting guns freely and easily, every day, even today. In fact, thanks to those laws, criminals can get them more easily than law-abiding people can... because the laws only restrict the law-abiding. Isn't that result the exact opposite of what you intended the laws to accomplish, Mr. Obama?

Please tell me that WASN'T what you intended to accomplish, Mr. Obama.

No, Mr. Obama, we can't make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands.

And since that's true, NOW what's your stance on so-called "gun control" laws, Mr. Obama? Do the facts change your opinions at all, on whether we should make laws restricting guns? Since all they do, is restrict or disarm law-abiding people and leave them to the mercy of the still-armed criminals?

Mr. Obama?

(Board liberals please feel free to chime in with your own answers to this question.)

Since we CAN'T make sure criminals don't get guns, the entire premise of "gun control" laws is discredited. The people making those laws, will tell you every time, that the purpose is to disarm the criminals. But the laws don't. They only restrict or disarm the law-abiding.

When will the leftist big-government types (like Barack Obama and many others) start taking this into account when making laws about guns?

I would love to rep you for this, but I am told I must spread some around first.

[Little-Acorn]

The more I look into liberal politicians' platforms, the more I find impossible claims and flagrant lies.

Why don't they address these things directly? Do they think making promises they can never fulfill, and which hurt the people they claim to want to help, is GOOD for the country?

Gun laws only restrict the law-abiding, not the criminals who break laws.

So why do you keep making them?

[theHawk]

As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

I guess this means that local and state governments can constrain any constitutional right as they see fit. Don't like freedom of speech? Just have local laws require a permit to exercise 1st Amendment rights. Don't like the way people vote? Just pass a local law to have their constitutional right to vote "constrained".

I can't believe there isn't a big issue being made of this. He is so willing to take away constitutional rights, when he is supposed to be protecting them with every fiber of his being (if he is Pres).

[Little-Acorn]

No, Mr. Obama, we can't make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands.

And since that's true, NOW what's your stance on so-called "gun control" laws, Mr. Obama? Do the facts change your opinions at all, on whether we should make laws restricting guns? Since all they do, is restrict or disarm law-abiding people and leave them to the mercy of the still-armed criminals?

Mr. Obama?

(Board liberals please feel free to chime in with your own answers to this question.)

Hmmm, an strange silence seems to be enveloping the board liberals on this question.

Doe that mean the liberals who supported "gun control" laws, have decided they won't support them any more? And will support repeal of the existing laws now?

.

.

(crickets chirping)

.

.

[No_Socialism]

A couple of informative vids on the subject:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ifEg1aq6Emo&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ifEg1aq6Emo&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5YJOm6ADfhY&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5YJOm6ADfhY&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Hagbard Celine]

The more I look into liberal politicians' platforms, the more I find impossible claims and flagrant lies.

Why don't they address these things directly? Do they think making promises they can never fulfill, and which hurt the people they claim to want to help, is GOOD for the country?

Gun laws only restrict the law-abiding, not the criminals who break laws.

So why do you keep making them?

What gun laws are you referring to? I always see you b*tch and moan about gun laws on here but last I checked, I could still march down to the neighborhood pawnshop (or even the closest Wal-Mart) and purchase any gun that suits my fancy with little to no hurdles. What is your grievance? Is it that those damn lib politicians dare to want to make you get a background check before you buy a gun? Because I'll tell you, that's designed to keep people with criminal backgrounds and mental problems from getting their hands on deadly weapons and I think it's a pretty good thing.

[crin63]

What gun laws are you referring to? I always see you b*tch and moan about gun laws on here but last I checked, I could still march down to the neighborhood pawnshop (or even the closest Wal-Mart) and purchase any gun that suits my fancy with little to no hurdles. What is your grievance? Is it that those damn lib politicians dare to want to make you get a background check before you buy a gun? Because I'll tell you, that's designed to keep people with criminal backgrounds and mental problems from getting their hands on deadly weapons and I think it's a pretty good thing.

I don't mind an instant FBI background check that takes 5 minutes, I'm opposed to it but I can live with that. I have to disagree with the, "mental problems" part though.

Who decides what is a mental problem, psych doctors? Thats like putting the monkeys in charge of the bananas.

If you allow psych doctors to decide, then anyone who owns guns, goes to church or has conservative leanings will be considered to have mental problems. Anyone who questions their opinion will be considered to have mental problems and for the most part they are liberal elitists.

Having previously committed a violent crime in the past should be the only consideration.

[gabosaurus]

Americans should be able to own any firearm they want, as many firearms as they want, buy as many as they want at one time and its absolutely no ones business but their own. If they wanna park a tank in their front yard go for it, this is America.


:laugh2: :laugh2:
You are indeed a funny person.

[5stringJeff]

You're right I don't agree. He's a typical Liberal that will say or do anything to get elected.

Americans should be able to own any firearm they want, as many firearms as they want, buy as many as they want at one time and its absolutely no ones business but their own. If they wanna park a tank in their front yard go for it, this is America.

This is America and its our right!

Amen!


:laugh2: :laugh2:
You are indeed a funny person.

I don't know what the opposite of Amen is, so I will just say, "go and boil your bottoms, sons of a silly person!"

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/10/08/Spamalot_wideweb__470x323,0.jpg

[Sitarro]

What gun laws are you referring to? I always see you b*tch and moan about gun laws on here but last I checked, I could still march down to the neighborhood pawnshop (or even the closest Wal-Mart) and purchase any gun that suits my fancy with little to no hurdles. What is your grievance? Is it that those damn lib politicians dare to want to make you get a background check before you buy a gun? Because I'll tell you, that's designed to keep people with criminal backgrounds and mental problems from getting their hands on deadly weapons and I think it's a pretty good thing.

Why not a background check for buying a car or truck, certainly a deadly weapon. Actually, a weapon that could be used for mass destruction on the right street.

[Little-Acorn]

Why not a background check for buying a car or truck, certainly a deadly weapon. Actually, a weapon that could be used for mass destruction on the right street.

One that can kill multiple victims with one press of the trigger (accelerator), no less. And the law REQUIRES that it come with a silencer!

[ranger]

For some reason, gabby doesn't ask us to forget all the LEFT-wing exaggerations. I think I can guess why. :lame2:

Back to the subject:
In the first group of questions gabby links to, Obama makes the statement:

"We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands."

I feel the need to ask him: "How?"

Because it looks to me like a flagrantly false statement.

All government can do, is make laws. But criminals are people who don't obey laws, remember? There are already lots of laws on the booksrestricting or "preventing" criminals from getting guns. But guess what: Criminals are getting guns freely and easily, every day, even today. In fact, thanks to those laws, criminals can get them more easily than law-abiding people can... because the laws only restrict the law-abiding. Isn't that result the exact opposite of what you intended the laws to accomplish, Mr. Obama?

Please tell me that WASN'T what you intended to accomplish, Mr. Obama.

No, Mr. Obama, we can't make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands.

And since that's true, NOW what's your stance on so-called "gun control" laws, Mr. Obama? Do the facts change your opinions at all, on whether we should make laws restricting guns? Since all they do, is restrict or disarm law-abiding people and leave them to the mercy of the still-armed criminals?

Mr. Obama?

(Board liberals please feel free to chime in with your own answers to this question.)

Since we CAN'T make sure criminals don't get guns, the entire premise of "gun control" laws is discredited. The people making those laws, will tell you every time, that the purpose is to disarm the criminals. But the laws don't. They only restrict or disarm the law-abiding.

When will the leftist big-government types (like Barack Obama and many others) start taking this into account when making laws about guns?

There is only one way to ensure criminals will not have guns and that is to remove ALL guns. I do see anything in the Constitution that justifies that.

[gabosaurus]

There is only one way to ensure criminals will not have guns and that is to remove ALL guns. I do see anything in the Constitution that justifies that.

Perhaps that needs to change. Let's draw up an amendment and put it to a vote.

Until then, you are free to own all the guns you want. But forget about the ammo.

[Sitarro]

Perhaps that needs to change. Let's draw up an amendment and put it to a vote.

Until then, you are free to own all the guns you want. But forget about the ammo.

You are such an ass, you are for total government control of everyone and everything but you. You couldn't possibly stop guns from getting in the hands of criminals, they would just be brought in by your illegal friends that flip off our laws when they cross our southern border every day. Or do you naively think that passing a "no guns or ammo" amendment would stop the rest of the world from having guns also. We can't even control illiterates from crossing our borders and you think that taking away our second amendment right would make this a nation without weapons....... you are so much more ignorant than I could have ever imagined. Maybe we should pass an amendment to make tacos and taco shells illegal to own, that would stop your buddies from coming hear illegally, right?

Abortion kills millions and you have no problem what-so-ever with that, you are the ultimate in hypocritical fools and provide a great case for taking away an idiot's right to vote. It is 2008, what possible justification could you have for the taking of an innocent life, for convenience sake, when so many ways are available for not getting pregnant in the first place and are available for free.

Again, grow up. You and the government have no business even talking about guns or ammo I possess. I am a law abiding, tax paying citizen. If you don't like guns, don't get one...... some how I would guess there is at least one in your home, more "do as I say not as I do" elitist crap from an Obammanite...... or is it an Obammination?

[LOki]

What gun laws are you referring to? I always see you b*tch and moan about gun laws on here but last I checked, I could still march down to the neighborhood pawnshop (or even the closest Wal-Mart) and purchase any gun that suits my fancy with little to no hurdles. What is your grievance? Is it that those damn lib politicians dare to want to make you get a background check before you buy a gun? Because I'll tell you, that's designed to keep people with criminal backgrounds and mental problems from getting their hands on deadly weapons and I think it's a pretty good thing.

Background checks are NOT designed to keep people with criminal backgrounds and mental problems from getting their hands on deadly weapons...they are specifically designed to be an obstacle to law abiding folks excersizing their right to keep and bear arms, and they are designed to document the identities of legal gun owners and the location of their guns.

Background checks serve only to motivate the criminally violent to steal guns rather than buy them.

[Little-Acorn]

No, Mr. Obama, we can't make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands.

And since that's true, NOW what's your stance on so-called "gun control" laws, Mr. Obama? Do the facts change your opinions at all, on whether we should make laws restricting guns? Since all they do, is restrict or disarm law-abiding people and leave them to the mercy of the still-armed criminals?

Mr. Obama?

(Board liberals please feel free to chime in with your own answers to this question.)

Still an ever-lengthening silence from the far-left side of the board on this question.

Do you intend to still push for laws restricting guns? Or do you intend to push for repeal of the ones already on the books? Or....?? How do you react to the fact that laws restricting guns, only restrict the law-abiding?

[Hagbard Celine]

Background checks are NOT designed to keep people with criminal backgrounds and mental problems from getting their hands on deadly weapons...they are specifically designed to be an obstacle to law abiding folks excersizing their right to keep and bear arms, and they are designed to document the identities of legal gun owners and the location of their guns.

Background checks serve only to motivate the criminally violent to steal guns rather than buy them.
I finally got my carry permit in the mail today. Yay!

[midcan5]

I'll say it again, guns are irrelevant, period. The gun huggers and crazies and the sane gun collectors and hunters will always have their guns. Guns are simply a distraction to keep the simpleminded looking in the other direction. Amazing what a wonderful distraction they are.

[Little-Acorn]

I'll say it again, guns are irrelevant, period.

That sound you just heard was midcan running away from the argument at high speed, with his tail tucked firmly between his legs.

BTW, are guns "irrelevant" to the woman who just lost her husband and son in a home-invasion robbery, shot dead as she frantically dialled 911?