Massive Obama Conspiracy to Kill the Second Amendment

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
We better hang on to the second amendment because all the others have been nullified, modified or outright destroyed.

I trust the NRA more than I trust Obama.

Thank you Asktheanimals...

And GREAT JOB seabag... you post the facts, you post the truth... apparently many either don't want to read the truth or refuse to.

reply to post by seabag


And yes seabag, he still does own his guns.

reply to post by TsukiLunar


Then he wasn't convicted of a felony!

second...

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by Kenrichaed
reply to post by seabag

 

I did read the information on page one and noticed that you did not list any major legislation initiated by the Obama Administration in regards to gun-control which would validate my point. Leaving your conspiracy's out of it, what actual things has he tried to pass to limit your access to weapons?

2 bills that expanded gun owners rights...
they are now allowed to take guns on Amtrak; and national parks.

And rightfully so, based in the 2nd AND 10th amendments. This is a state issue...the federal government has already ruled on gun rights because we have a 2ND and 10TH!

Obama is pandering for now...the whole point of the NRA statement was about Obama's SECOND TERM. You can call it fearmongering (you didn't but you could) or something else but the fact is that Obama supported much tougher gun regulation as a state senator in Illinois. His true feeling are well known. As soon as this election is out of the way it's GAME ON!

Well put Seabag... 'under the radar' he told Sarah Brady in front of many, and she even repeated it to the newspaper and bragged Obama's agenda.

Thank you Seabag... I'm new here and was uneasy bringing this onto ATS... I've been clobbered hard for less..

reply to post by seabag


Care to tell me which of these things he actually did? You may be surprised but it shouldn't be hard for you to find out since your link is from July 2011.

Don't you think if he was really for gun-control he would have used the giffords shooting to pass legislation? All you can seem to bring up are second hand reports about what Obama thinks he might do in the future and basing an attack on the second amendment on it.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

Then he wasn't convicted of a felony!

second...

I wouldn't know. I live in Oklahoma, if that helps. And the cops never came and talked to me about it or anything. They just came, tased him, took his guns and him and left.

Saw him years later, he apologized. Still said he has his guns. Never saw him after that.

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by Kenrichaed
reply to post by seabag

 

I did read the information on page one and noticed that you did not list any major legislation initiated by the Obama Administration in regards to gun-control which would validate my point. Leaving your conspiracy's out of it, what actual things has he tried to pass to limit your access to weapons?

2 bills that expanded gun owners rights...
they are now allowed to take guns on Amtrak; and national parks.

And rightfully so, based in the 2nd AND 10th amendments. This is a state issue...the federal government has already ruled on gun rights because we have a 2ND and 10TH!

Obama is pandering for now...the whole point of the NRA statement was about Obama's SECOND TERM. You can call it fearmongering (you didn't but you could) or something else but the fact is that Obama supported much tougher gun regulation as a state senator in Illinois. His true feeling are well known. As soon as this election is out of the way it's GAME ON!

The States must bow to Federal Law in any circumstance where a conflict exists between them. That is per the Supreme Court.

The news media is full of quotes of confirmation of Obama's agenda... all one must do is query, i.e.

dailycaller.com...

In a rash attempt to deflect attention away from himself and his own irresponsibility, Holder let Congress know that the Obama administration is still working toward the day when it can reinstate former President Bill Clinton’s so-called “assault weapons” ban.


Read more: dailycaller.com...


www.foxnews.com...

Obama and his campaign constantly tried to explain away his past support for gun control as being mistakes by subordinates who had incorrectly explained his positions

theobamafile.com...


Read more: www.foxnews.com...

I just did this query hurriedly true... "obama anti-second amendment' ... and there were more than 9,610,000 hits... check it out...

reply to post by OldCurmudgeon


Like I said, all you guys are given us is second hand reports about what Obama plans to do in the future. The fact is that he is not doing anything in terms of legislation to take away your rights.

reply to post by OldCurmudgeon


With the exception of the AWB none of those were during his presidency. You can't honestly tell me there's reason for the average citizen to own an assault rifle, can you? If you do bother explaining try and avoid the 'big gubment' argument.

Originally posted by Kenrichaed
reply to post by seabag

 

Care to tell me which of these things he actually did? You may be surprised but it shouldn't be hard for you to find out since your link is from July 2011.

Don't you think if he was really for gun-control he would have used the giffords shooting to pass legislation? All you can seem to bring up are second hand reports about what Obama thinks he might do in the future and basing an attack on the second amendment on it.

Arguing with you is like a big circle because you fail to grasp the point (or evidence…history…Obama’s intentions…etc!



What I’ve SAID is:

This is a tactic often used by the left (especially the MSM)…they just keep telling the same lies over and over again until people believe them! That doesn’t fly here…sorry!

Obama is pandering for now...the whole point of the NRA statement was about Obama's SECOND TERM. You can call it fearmongering (you didn't but you could) or something else but the fact is that Obama supported much tougher gun regulation as a state senator in Illinois. His true feeling are well known. As soon as this election is out of the way it's GAME ON.

Well I feel that if this really was an important issue for him that he would have did it when he had Congress behind him. The odds of the democrats taking the House are slim to none making any legislation he wants in regards to this issue, dead upon arrival.

If he tries to get anything through by Executive Order it will be quickly challeneged up to the Supreme Court who recently has solidly backed the 2nd amendment.

I don't see what you are specifically threatened by and certainly no signs of a "massive conspiracy."

reply to post by Kenrichaed

The States must bow to Federal Law in any circumstance where a conflict exists between them. That is per the Supreme Court.

And what does the constitution say??? Particularly the second amendment?

Anything that infringes upon that is WRONG. The federal government has no right to keep American’s from bearing arms in federal parks or on Amtrak trains (because of the 2nd amendment and because that PARK and TRAIN is in a STATE).

The constitution is clear…if a state wants to make stricter laws it can…and people have the RIGHT to LEAVE that state. The federal government should NOT infringe on that constitutional right.

The reason there is a NRA is because stupid politicians trample on second amendment rights and the NRA is one of the only organizations that will stand up to them and do what's right.

reply to post by seabag


The Supreme Court decides what is Constitutional and they have. If you have a phrase in the Constitution with one side claiming it means this and the other side claiming it means something different than the Supreme Court will render the final decision as to who is right.

This is a power granted to them by the Constitution itself. So the Supreme Court is the final word on what the Constitution means and they have ruled solidly on this issue.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by OldCurmudgeon

 

With the exception of the AWB none of those were during his presidency. You can't honestly tell me there's reason for the average citizen to own an assault rifle, can you? If you do bother explaining try and avoid the 'big gubment' argument.

The whole idea of the second amendment is to allow the people to protect themselves against tyrannical govt, not against crackhead criminals. That is secondary.

So, YEAH, there is a GOOD reason for PEOPLE, not citizens, to own assault rifles. And lots of ammo. That's why it's in the Bill of Rights.

Is this guy serious?

Hes basically saying ' I know Obama has done nothing against 2nd Amendment, but dont fall for that. Its a scam to make us feel secure. I have insider info that tells me his true intentions for his seconed term, and they include banning the 2nd amendment.' Yeah and I was told to put a grip on "Glue-Pot" to win in the 5th race @ Belmont.





I dont know what it is about Obama that makes the right come up with this stuff. Do they sit around and compare lies or is it just a general understanding to come up with the most ludicrous lie as they take comfort in their fact repelling bubble?

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by OldCurmudgeon

 

With the exception of the AWB none of those were during his presidency. You can't honestly tell me there's reason for the average citizen to own an assault rifle, can you? If you do bother explaining try and avoid the 'big gubment' argument.

I got a good laugh of your fifth grade comment 'big gubmet' and I assume you are a 'Roads skollar'... Sadly I no longer hunt, and I would give you that other than a toy, I personally have no real use for an assault rifle. You line of question here however is intensly flawed as the determination of what an assault rifle is has been beat back and forth more than a tennis ball at Wimbelton. The anti gunners in several attempts have qualified to name but one, Remington 1100 semi-automatic shotguns as an 'automatic' weapon and their criteria would have included it as an assault weapon.
And you can search and find as I stated the comments made by people on Obama's staff, in his administration, i.e. the AG infamous for the debacle 'Fast and Furious' which let reportadley more than two thousand of your assault rifles walk freely into Mexico to kill and main sensely... and to date these guns have been used in the shooting of one deputy sheriff within 10 miles of my house and the killing of a young man who was a border patrol agent that we know of, and how many uses of the weapons are being hidden.
Moving on, Holder while speaking in Mexico and others of Obama's staff have openly stated and been recorded by journalist in espousing Obama's gun agenda. And it DOES NOT protect my Second Amendment rights..
Now his spin doctors came back and attempted to blame insubordinates for mis-stating facts, but it is so patently obvious these people did not make up their comments and some even read from prepared statements.
And, this which I have posted is recent and fact: EH in an attempt of diversion at the hearings clearly stated that the President would find a way to reinstate the Clinton gun ban.
And how can anyone question Sarah Brady, the first lady of gun control who wants nothing less than the complete ban of ownership of guns by citizens.
Read more: www.foxnews.com...
Over a barrel? Meet White House gun policy adviser Steve Croley
www.washingtonpost.com...
On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial “large magazines.” Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.
“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”
In the meeting, she said, Obama discussed how records get into the system and what can be done about firearms retailers. Her husband specifically brought up the proposed ban on large magazine clips, and she noted that even former vice president Dick Cheney had suggested that some restrictions on the clips might make sense.
“He just laughed,” Sarah Brady said approvingly of the president. Both she and her husband, she emphasized, had absolute confidence that the president was committed to regulation.
One would have to be unable to read to not see the 'clear' intent in that he made a special visit: “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.
And told her: “I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”
His agenda is clear, his methods are clear and his path is clear when he said, "but under the radar"... now I don't think even you believe he was talking about visiting an airport.
Anyone interested in the individual rights of American Citizens can follow by a variety of media sources quotes and statements from individuals from Billy Carter, someone called Lady gaggy to the President of Iran. Some taken our of context true, but most are filmed and recorded and when you see it on film and hear if on tape, it cannot be denied.
INTENT...
I have emailed the President and ask for a detailed statement of his agenda, if re-elect on the Second Amendment of the Constituion and gun ownership.
I will post his answer when I recieve it.

Sorry, but at the risk of sounding ignorant, how does the new article propose that SIFTA would actually curtail the right to own guns? As far as I can tell its aim is just to set up a registry so that arms which find their way across borders can be traced to people who (presumably) have shipped them.

?

Any attempt at truly restricting gun rights would never pass constitutional muster folks ... any person being disenfranchised of that right would simply be able to raise the case in Federal court and would have the standing to do so as a person injured or likely to suffer injury as a result of the measure.

2nd Amendment is going anywhere. 2/3 of both Houses and 3/4 of the states are never going to vote to remove it from the constitution.

Chill out.

reply to post by seabag


Tangerine yes you are

mush mush]

Ha!

In case you are too numb to realize, you are the amendment that is being ammended.

All this talk about Obama trying to take away guns - if there's one topic that Obama has NEVER talked about, it's firearms. Even when Gabby Gifford was shot and nearly killed. Obama has NEVER indicated a policy toward gun legislation. The NRA isn't just reading tea leaves, it's imagining the tea leaves are there.