Another swipe at the 2nd Amendment by Obama

Will try it again.
Another swipe at the 2nd by Obama and company. Yes, it is from the Blaze, big deal. Other sources are provided within the article.

www.theblaze.com...

WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — Six months after Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot, the White House is preparing to propose some new steps on gun safety, though they’re likely to fall short of the bold measures activists would like to see.

Spokesman Jay Carney said that the new steps would be made public “in the near future.” He didn’t offer details, but people involved in talks at the Justice Department to craft the new measures said they expected to see something in the next several weeks. Whatever is proposed is not expected to involve legislation or take on major issues, like banning assault weapons, but could include executive action to strengthen the background check system or other steps.

“The president directed the attorney general to form working groups with key stakeholders to identify common-sense measures that would improve American safety and security while fully respecting Second Amendment rights,” Carney said Thursday. “That process is well under way at the Department of Justice, with stakeholders on all sides working through these complex issues, and we expect to have some more specific announcements in the near future.”

Anti-gun groups have been disappointed to see no action so far from President Barack Obama, who supported tough gun control measures earlier in his career but fell largely silent upon becoming president. Some activists were using the opportunity of the six-month anniversary of the Giffords shooting on Friday to speak up.

The shooting rampage in Tucson, Ariz., killed six people and wounded more than a dozen others, including Giffords. Two months later, Obama wrote an opinion piece in Giffords’ local paper, the Arizona Daily Star, calling for “sound and effective steps” to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, including strengthening background checks.

reply to post by macman


I'm not worried about this, they're not taking my guns. And they're not taking everyone else's either. The government knows that would be a mistake and won't try it but once.

reply to post by macman


I wish I had guns for them to try and take.. I've been waiting for years to drop kick some one.

This article actually proves that Obama has been "soft" towards the anti-gun lobby! All that is proposed is more restrictions to hinder criminals from getting guns through stricter background checks.

As an avid shooter, I have no problem with this at all. Your rights to bear arms is still intact, unless you're a felon. In that case you shouldn't have a gun.

I don't see how this is a "swipe at the 2nd amendment".

The president directed the attorney general to form working groups with key stakeholders to identify common-sense measures that would improve American safety and security while fully respecting Second Amendment rights

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
This article actually proves that Obama has been "soft" towards the anti-gun lobby! All that is proposed is more restrictions to hinder criminals from getting guns through stricter background checks.

As an avid shooter, I have no problem with this at all. Your rights to bear arms is still intact, unless you're a felon. In that case you shouldn't have a gun.

I don't see how this is a "swipe at the 2nd amendment".

The president directed the attorney general to form working groups with key stakeholders to identify common-sense measures that would improve American safety and security while fully respecting Second Amendment rights

edit on 8-7-2011 by sheepslayer247 because: add quote and statement

Boil the frog slowly.
Sorry, but it is a slippery slope that has started.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


Ok, would these stricter laws have prevented the Giffords shooting?

There are a few thread where I have posted statistics, but 97% of all guns used in shootings are obtained illegally. Therefore, an infinite amount of new laws, can only prevent 3% of all gun crimes. That same 3% is probably going to occur anyway, but with another tool of the trade.

So, this is a swipe at the 2nd amendment, because its only purpose can be to further strengthen control on guns, while not providing any tangible reduction in gun crime. Therefore, what is their true motivation? CONTROL!

reply to post by getreadyalready

I completely agree. If a criminal wants to get a gun, they can and it would not have prevented Giffords from being shot.

I don't see this as a swipe at the 2nd amendment because there will be no teeth to the proposed regulations. "Stricter background checks" will not stop legal gun buyers from getting guns.

To me this is just an obvious knee-jerk response that Obama must take in light of the Gifford's shooting. This is nothing more than politics and I will be surprised if 2nd amendment rights are effected in any way.

If he was interested in control, he could have started that process a long time ago. This is pure politics in my opinion.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


You do realize that you contradict yourself within your own response?

As if the Justice Dept. can be trusted! They are already being investigated by a Congressional committee!! When those who enforce the laws are letting purchases that any rational gun owner would say were a mistake, what does that say about the ability of those who enforce said laws? It's not the gun laws that are a problem it's the cross agency info sharing. Loughner had a history of mental problems and brushes with the law, how did that slip through the cracks??? All those factors should have prohibited him from buying a firearm. Sounds more like p.c. nonsense about not stigmatizing those with a mental illness.

reply to post by macman


Perhaps it seems that way and I was not clear enough in my first post.

I have no problem with this because it's a dog and pony show! Legal gun buyers will get their guns!

This is just a way for Obama to look as though he really cares about the issue to satisfy his anti-gun constituents. I'll be surprised if anthing at all comes from this, let alone a stab at the 2nd amend.

I hope I was clearer this time.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


It is still more control over the legal gun owner.
Sorry, but it is still a slippery slope.

reply to post by Mapkar
what you think it is going to be a mass knock on the door no, it will be one by one day by day, till there are non left it will be like " patrol car pulls up, one stays in the car there other comes to your door, you answer it, he/she say's:" Our records show that you have the following fire arms, do you still have them?"
yes you say, or you say none or your biz, the latter will get you in handcuffs, if you conform,
"can you prove that you still have them"
Why yes i can you say.
the cop then says"Under the new UN ban signed by the pres we acting on his behalf have the right to confiscate and take possession of your listed firearm(s) do you understand"
Yes you reply. the cop then continues
" if you can not produce listed firearms, you will be put under arrest, and detained until you can produce said firearm'(s) Do you under stand?" yes says you and comply, or your a bad ass and let some lead fly now what is the out come?? SWAT comes in takes you down and there is no big revolt for you are just one person, in the one hour, day, til the next hour, day, approaches.... get it? There is no planed, big, by the street by house search, it is a one by one hour by hour day by day search. Can not prove or show you still have it when asked then you will be held until proving it is no longer in your possession, you have been warned of this, take heed for the day is coming, all we the people can do is prevent it from being today. or not in your life time.

I am against ALL gun laws that infringe on the 2nd Ammendment rights of free people. Gun control is always followed by subjigation and oppression.

The people who need gun control laws are the government. Somebody tell me of a group that has commited more crimes, is more secretive, and killed more people than the government. A government is to never be trusted. They all eventually go bad.

One of his biggest backers for moving this "executive order" gun control along is the Mayors Against Illegal Guns headed by Menino and Bloomberg.

One of their great causes lately has been combining the no-fly list with the background checks to make a no-buy list.

Thereby having your 2nd Amendment nullified without due process.

I say that is a clear danger to "legal" gun buyers.

All it takes is a phonecall. One accusing finger. No proof. No investigation. No recourse for defense. And you can no longer purchase firearms.

The article from USA Today and the Huffington Post also claims a high capacity magazine restriction is on the table.

Thread from earlier today www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Now this is a different story alltogether. We have to watch out for things like this. Obama making a political gesture is one thing, but adding people to a "no-buy" list is an encroachment on our 2nd amend rights.

you dont see many assault weapons used in crimes.
and you will Always be aboule to get ANY weapon.
just go to Mexico and sneak back
like All the others.
if you do get stop't.
just say you are a Mexican drug smuggler!
they will just wave you on.

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by Mapkar

 

what you think it is going to be a mass knock on the door no, it will be one by one day by day, till there are non left it will be like " patrol car pulls up, one stays in the car there other comes to your door, you answer it, he/she say's:" Our records show that you have the following fire arms, do you still have them?"
yes you say, or you say none or your biz, the latter will get you in handcuffs, if you conform,
"can you prove that you still have them"
Why yes i an you say.
the cop then says"Under the new UN ban signed by the pres we acting on his behalf have the right to confiscate and take possession of your listed firearm(s) do you understand"
Yes you reply. the cop then continues
" if you can not produce listed firearms, you will be put under arrest, and detained until you can produce said firearm'(s) Do you under stand?" yes says you and comply, or your a bad ass and let some lead fly now what is the out come?? SWAT comes in takes you down and there is no big revolt for you are just one person, in the one hour, day, til the next hour, day, approaches.... get it? There is no planed, big, by the street by house search, it is a one by one hour by hour day by day search. Can not prove or show you still have it when asked then you will be held until proving it is no longer in your possession, you have been warned of this, take heed for the day is coming, all we the people can do is prevent it from being today. or not in your life time.

This is exactly right. One good way to protect yourself is to hide all your guns, then break a window, mess some stuff up, and call the cops and say you've been robbed of all your weapons.

Useless cops will just file a report, as usual, and do nothing else. Ever been robbed? I have. Cops ever done anything about other than file a report? Nope. This will get you off all their lists.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


I understood what you meant. You think it is just a toothless political maneuver to give the impression of action. You think if he wanted real control, it would have been a part of his agenda from the start.

That has opinion has some merit, but he has directed some other actions. He signed the UN agreement that limited our gun rights. He oversaw the ATF fiasco across the Mexican border. He approved the IRS requirement to begin declaring guns on tax returns.

In my opinion any new law on guns is a swipe at the 2nd amendment, because they have been proven to have zero effect on reducing crime, and therefore the only motivation for new requirements is to further limit our rights.

Originally posted by buddha
you dont see many assault weapons used in crimes.
and you will Always be aboule to get ANY weapon.
just go to Mexico and sneak back
like All the others.
if you do get stop't.
just say you are a Mexican drug smuggler!
they will just wave you on.

LOL! The Mexicans are saying the same about us. Need a gun? Just sneak across the American border. If that doesn't work, find an ATF agent and tell them you work for a Mexican cartel. They'll give you a free gun!

There's something missing...

The press, the talking heads, and blogosphere will be chatting this topic up, but as our own Constitutional dunce and electoral fraud has deigned to preach to the good citizens of Arizona...

But one clear and terrible fact remains. A man our Army rejected as unfit for service; a man one of our colleges deemed too unstable for studies; a man apparently bent on violence, was able to walk into a store and buy a gun

There's a very important word missing in that statement... LEGALLY. The word legally doesn't appear in that statement because it can't... I'm sure a real lawyer on Obama's staff made sure that word was no where near this opinion piece.

The word "legally" can't appear because Jared Loughner committed a federal felony by lying on ATF Form 4473 (5300.9) Part J Revised August 2008 otherwise known as the Firearms Transaction Record Part I Over-the-Counter, specifically question 11 e:

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

Answering "yes" will result in a denied transaction.

Penalties are clear:

WARNING: You may not receive a firearm if prohibited by Federal or State law. The information you provide will
be used to determine whether you are prohibited under law from receiving a firearm. Certain violations of the Gun
Control Act, 18 U.S.c. §§ 92] et. seq., are punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment and/or up to a $250,000 fine.

Jared Loughner will never be charged with this crime because it would disable much of the gun control argument.The laws are in place, they simply aren't enforced. The only law gun control advocates domestic enemies who want tear down the US Constitution for their own maniacal reasons want to enforce and prosecute is a total ban on guns in the US... Then the rest of the Bill of Rights will be easy pickings...