Obama's first steps towards gun restrictions?

Earlier today, President Obama gave a speech in New Orleans which seems to be a very explicit stance against owning assault rifles.

Opinions? Personally i don't see how an assault rifle would ever be needed in a defense situation, but i'd like to hear any/all input.

"I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals," Obama said. "That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.".

CNN article

First they start with a small snowball. Once the snowball is created, they pack on some more snow and being rolling it. The snowball takes on a larger shape and continues to grow. By the time the snowball is too big to push, it is rolling on its own.

This is merely the first straw... this is to get the 'ball rolling' in the direction they want. If he can convince the people to give him an inch, he is ready to take a mile.

reply to post by chadderson


Yeah i don't really see how he "isn't taking a stance" with statements that obvious.

"On Wednesday, however, Obama emphasized a need for background checks and the prevention of "mentally unbalanced" individuals from obtaining guns. He faulted opposition in Congress for lack of progress made in reducing violence.

"These steps shouldn't controversial. They should be common sense," Obama said, though without elaborating too specifically on measures of enforcement.

"We should leave no stone unturned and recognize that we have no greater mission as a country than keeping our young people safe," he added."

How exactly would there be a reasonable way to determine whether a person is mentally stable enough for a weapons? Psych evaluations for every buyer? I just don't see how what he's asking for can be accomplished short of taking away all guns.

reply to post by chadderson


He's writings self fulfilling prophecy. The moment they try to take these weapons the streets are very likely to become a battlefield! Then, these weapons would be perfectly justifiable

He may try to get a snowball rolling, but people may not stand for it and he might get an avalanche.

The "assualt weapon ban" cost Clinton the congress in 96...and no one would vote to reauthorize it in 2004. Democrats in Western and Southern states know this is a losing proposition...

I doubt this goes anywhere...as much as he will try.

Yeah I don't really see they will be able to accomplish this either.

So they want to keep guns out of "mentally unstable" peoples hands, but what about the already "mentally unstable" people who already own them? Are they going to go door to door to find out who is mentally capable of owning a gun??

I just love how he calls any law abiding citizen who owns a firearm he doesn't like criminals.

Screw you Obama.

reply to post by SrWingCommander


Yeah i don't really expect it to go anywhere either but who knows, some pretty crazy laws have been passed lately. I never expected the national defense bill to be passed either.

Maybe we should start and "I own an AR15 and am not a criminal thread".

You know I beleive the AR-15 was sold to civillians BEFORE It was ever sold to the military as the M-16 as a futuristic sporting rifle.

reply to post by Bodhi7


They try to make assault rifles sound so scarey. The only thing I agree with him on is stopping the problem at the cause, parenting, environment and such. I've been trying to find more actual verbiage of the UN Small Arms Treaty. This speech, the spin from the media on the shooting are at a convenient time for the treaty talks. Most of the articles I find just have the key points of it, the international gun registry, and the ban on semi-automatic weapons. I can't possibly see them trying to apply that to American citizens. But then again I could see them trying to say, you can still have a hunting rifle, so the 2nd Amendment isn't infringed

Pretty soon they will make it illegal to own a gun that carries anything more than a single bullet. It's absurd. Every gun hater always states that the 2nd amendment was created when they only had muskets. Sure that's all fine and well but imagine if the founding fathers had a machine gun at their disposal, does that mean they wouldn't have created the 2nd amendment? The answer to that is no. They knew the government would become too powerful and eventually come for peoples weapons. If we give them up we lose America.

How much do you want to bet that if you're known to have "unusual political views" you will be deemed to be "mentally unstable"?

I believe that this speech is what they call...

"testing the water"

Toss out some bait and see how many respond..

Don't really see it going anywhere..

reply to post by Irish614


Like i said, I never have fully understood why someone would need an assault rifle but that's the reason i would never back any legislation that further limited our gun rights, once it starts, it won't stop until we're fighting back with nothing but sticks and stones.

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
I believe that this speech is what they call...

"testing the water"

Toss out some bait and see how many respond..

Don't really see it going anywhere.. [/quote]

They will probably throw this out for awhile and then check his poll numbers.

Almost every post I have seen on Facebook or other social media is overwhelmingly in support of gun rights. Women are one of the number one buyers right now....and the AR15 series one of the most popular sellers.

reply to post by Bodhi7


As has been discussed ad nauseum weapon bans don't reduce crimes commited by weapons.

Ergo, they just don't like the people having the capability to make real change, if required.

reply to post by SrWingCommander


But... the President said "AK 47" + military..

not AR 15...

hmmm.. wonder why?


I agree with the poster earlier about the failure to continue the AWB that was in place, this fishing attempt is just to see if there might be enough support to try and get that reinstated..

It would make sense that they would approach it this way..

To come straight out and demand the AWB be voted back in, is to basically end his candidacy.. and anyone else who would support such a "knee jerk" reaction to a crazed lone gunman who took innocent lives.

IMO of course..

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
I believe that this speech is what they call...

"testing the water"

Toss out some bait and see how many respond..

Don't really see it going anywhere..

Some people also call it a trial balloon.

reply to post by JacKatMtn


Unless of course, after testing the waters, he waits until after a possible reelection before putting anything in motion. At that point he would have nothing to lose.

If he can get away with some of the bills he has signed and still have a pretty good shot at a second term, it's scary to think about what he could do in a second term when he will be far less concerned with public opinion.

reply to post by Bodhi7


Rights are not based on need, and you don't have to justify owning something when it is a right.