Obama to Deliver Gun-grabbing Speech Soon

“President Obama tonight failed to challenge old assumptions on the need for, and political possibilities of, reducing the gun violence – which he suggested should be done two weeks ago in Tucson,” complained Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the nation’s largest anti-Second Amendment group.

Now administration officials say Obama will address the issue soon. In the next two weeks, Newsweek reports, the White House will unveil a brand spanking new gun control effort designed to strengthen previous anti-Second Amendment laws on the books.

The Obama White House will use the mentally deranged accused Giffords shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, to push for background checks, although in order to avoid the impression that Obama is exploiting the Arizona shooting for political gain the White House will dedicate a separate speech to the issue.

Full Story Link


In yet another move to take your rights away this administration has made it clear that your right to keep and bear arms WILL be infringed. This is a multi-front attack on your Constitutional Rights all happening at the exact same time and they will be using the actions of a crazy person to justify it. These tyrannical politicians must be pulled back from their perpetual agenda to turn the United States into an East German styled police state.

Well, those with guns have already began the war, starting with these instruments of the elite, also known as cops. Let the politicians try it...I'm sure we have more fire power than they do!

reply to post by EssenSieMich

In the wake of such tragedies it is hard for advocates of gun control to be rational (unless their raison d'etre or rationale is to forward an anti gun agenda). We dont here proponents of car safety go "ballistic" everytime there is a multi-car, multiple death car/truck accident on the highway (one's odds of being killed inside a motor vehicle is greater by several magnitude than from being killed by a bullet fired from a gun). However, that being said, it is important to keep the mentally incompetent from getting their hands on any firearm (whether it fires 1 shot or 30 and looks scary [ie,black furniture, flash hider, bayonet lug, tactical rails, etc) or is made of pink plastic. Needless to say strong laws should be enforced for keeping guns away from career criminals (especially those apt to use them in the commission of crimes against persons). It is a balancing act between "collective safety" and "individual rights" but we must not forget the language of the 2nd Amendment which says that the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. If we are to err then we must err on the side of allowing individuals to own firearms like we take our chances on the highway (which is populated by drunks, drivers with no or a revoked license, etc). Like Einstein's bent space and time we start out with individual rights to firearm ownership but in the end it ends up being for the collective safety also. How is that? Look at the intent of the founders in drafting the 2nd A. It is to protect the republic (collective) from a despotical dictator from seizing and exercising tyrannical control over our country. Not that anyone in our government has such designs but it has happened throughout history (to wit: Hitler's Germany; Stalin's Russia and Mao's China). As Santaanna said, "those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."

This unfortunately is old news already, anybody with a clue knew the moment the news broke about Giffords being shot that there would be new laws passed, it was just a matter of when and what would be in the bill. Odds are good they will re-create the assault weapons ban but without a sunset provision like the previous one had . If you want any high capacity magazines for your guns I suggest buying them pronto before the price skyrockets on ones that are grandfathered in.

reply to post by EssenSieMich


What ever they try will not work, there's more weapons on my street (very peaceful street I might add) than in most armorys, I don't know if anyone remembers a few years ago in California they came in and raided this guys house that lives down the street from me. He had an underground shooting range under his suburban house. It took athorities over week to remove all the weapons and ammunition. There is many more like him in this area and they loves their ammo just as much as their guns, .50 caliber DE's, to mini 14's, shotgun shells that leave you with only legs. Yea take our guns, LOL good luck with that one bub.

Guns are only evil in the wrong hands, if more of the right hands had guns there would be less wrong hands. A gun is just an object, is has to be used to be deadly. How about we get rid of the wrong hands instead?

reply to post by EssenSieMich

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the nation’s largest anti-Second Amendment group.

How do they even allow a group that is opposed to the constitution?

Shouldn't they be classed as criminals and be arrested?
Are they not in fact terrorists according to DHS rulings?

reply to post by backinblack


You would think so, defiantly a travesty to this country.....

reply to post by mileslong54


if the police came and raided your house and took your guns, do you really think your neighbours are going to start firing at them.

anyway background checks can not be a bad thing even if they stop only one murder.

reply to post by lewman

anyway background checks can not be a bad thing even if they stop only one murder.

Then it would turn into needing a permit..
That would make gun ownership a "privilige", not a "right".....

If those underachievers in the Obama administration keep their record for being idiotic, I for one am not concerned about them.

They could not pour p*ss out of a boot if the directions were written on the heel.

Gun control does not necessarily equate to gun grabbing. There's clearly a problem or two in this country with illegal and automatic weapons and the like and clearly some of our citizens have some very real concerns. Shutting down any and all debate about it doesn't do the country as a whole any good.

reply to post by ~Lucidity

There's clearly a problem or two in this country with illegal and automatic weapons and the like and clearly some of our citizens have some very real concerns.

Well the illegal guns you mention need no debate..
All that needs is for law enforcement to do their job..

Legal guns are just that, legal....

Apparently to these liberal half wits, the actions of one crazy loony, should permit the infringement of other law abiding citizens rights?

Even the liberals over at the Huffington Post admit many Americans support the Second Amendment and any attempt to diminish the amendment will be an uphill battle.

Very similar topic on a thread I started awhile back:

abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Gun control does not necessarily equate to gun grabbing. There's clearly a problem or two in this country with illegal and automatic weapons and the like and clearly some of our citizens have some very real concerns. Shutting down any and all debate about it doesn't do the country as a whole any good.

The illegal ones are already illegal. How do you propose we make them extra-illegal?

Got any numbers on this "automatic weapons" problem?

Shutting down this debate saves a lot of wasted time and hot air.

We have background checks. We have an infinite list of "gun crimes." We have licensing and permits and regulated firearms.

What more do you suggest that wouldnt be "gun grabbing?"

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Got any numbers on this "automatic weapons" problem?

I don't understand the debate on automatic weapons...
I think many don't understand why the second amendment was written..

It's not about hunting deer or bears..
It's about defending against another force, foreign or domestic..
It dictates that the people should be armed with equal weapons..
Really that allows the people to own Black Hawks, let alone an automatic rifle..

reply to post by backinblack


Nine times out of ten when somebody says "automatic weapon" they mean a machine gun. Which are heavilly regulated, unavailable after a certain manufacture date (forget what year exactly) and outrageously expensive (like a new car expensive) and used in something like .0000000001% of all crimes.

So I just wanted to know if Lucidity knew how big that automatic weapon problem was.

ETA: I absolutely believe the 2nd has no limitations by the way. Just curious about the posters "automatic weapons" thing.

If Obama makes the speech like some are anticipating it will most assuredly lead to his political death. He is carefully calculating the consequences as we debate the issue here.

There are plenty of existing laws regulating firearms and the ownership of firearms. Gotta enforce what's on the books already.

Obama will be very careful on the issue. His handlers will guarantee that.

reply to post by backinblack

That's oversimplifying it a bit.

First, let's be realistic and face it...the founding fathers didn't envision a country this large with automatic weapons available online or virtual arsenals in every (or even most) homes.

Second, there are steps we can take to make things easier to find the illegal guns or from people to get them. Things like standardizing the laws from state to state regarding licensing. Inspecting more shipments. Waiting periods. Tracing ammo. Required safety courses.

All I'm saying is that there's clearly some room for discussion and debate and maybe even some sane control here. People are concerned and rightly so. And if we don't do it now, we will in the future.

reply to post by lewman


We don't need my neighbors to protect us, if anyone wants to threaten my freedom as said so by the 2nd amendment to the constitution then can try what they want, but people will as I already do, will find that it won't be worth living if the last source of defense for you and your families freedom is gone. I'm not saying to arm your self or take up arms but when someone wants to take your only security you have to realize what that means. Peace, never war, but it's a wicked world that we live in and when evil is in control there always comes a time to fight for good. I think this is a better question for Thomas Jefferson. Peace