Obama giving speech on gun control in Minneapolis, Minn.

It seems like background checks are a pretty reasonable measure to take. I like the idea of people that have guns needing to be as competent as people who drive cars or people who fly planes.

Aint it about time he gives a speech in Chicago, for the love of god it is a war zone, has he ever even addressed it?

Originally posted by allstonmurdaz
It seems like background checks are a pretty reasonable measure to take. I like the idea of people that have guns needing to be as competent as people who drive cars or people who fly planes.

We have the toughest laws in the union and the most murders or close to the most, and he remains silent.

Wouldn't want the clueless minions to know the facts.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Indigo5

 

But...you don't fear monger?

Quote it

I just did?

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by neo96


When the government makes all the decisions in a citizens life that is not liberty that is tyranny,

Background checks = "government makes all the decisions in a citizens life" = Tyranny??

But...you don't fear monger?

Originally posted by neo96

So when Ronald Reagan fought for the last AW Ban, one which would never pass today...Ronald Reagan was a Tyrant?

Did he now?

Yah...You should look things up sometimes...

May 3, 1994
To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives:

We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. Although assualt weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime.

.........full letter at link......

Sincerely,

Gerald R. Ford

Jimmy Carter

Ronald Reagan

www.theblaze.com...

Ford, Carter, Reagan Push for Gun Ban
articles.latimes.com...

The Assault Weapon Ban Would Have Never Passed If It Wasn't For Ronald Reagan
www.buzzfeed.com...

Not only that...but

More substantially, though, Reagan apparently persuaded at least two Republican Members of Congress to change their vote:


Congressman Scott Klug, a Republican from Wisconsin was an opponent of the assault weapon ban and the day before the vote stated his opposition to the ban. Klug only changed his voted after “a last minute plea from President Reagan” in the form of a handwritten note.

”Dear Scott: As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms, I, too, have carefully thought about this issue. I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary,” Reagan wrote Klug. “I know there is heavy pressure on you to go the other way, but I strongly urge you to join me in supporting this bill. It must be passed. Sincerely, Ronald Reagan.”

”I can think of no one who has been a stronger supporter of law and order and a stronger supporter of the Second Amendment,” Klug said in a statement regarding Reagan’s note announcing his support for the ban.

Another former Congressman, New Hampshire Democrat Dick Swett, also credited the former President with influencing his voting. Swett was unsure of how to vote on the ban, but made up his made after direct lobbying from Reagan.

www.outsidethebeltway.com...

506 murders in 2012, an increase of 17 percent from the previous year. As of Thursday, there were 42 homicides and 157 shootings

usnews.nbcnews.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Indigo5


Yeah full letter:

While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.

The ASB passed because of straight out lying just like every other law congressman pass.

Criminals never gave up their guns BTW.

Answer :

What kind of guns do you own?

reply to post by neo96


Yah...So Reagan pressed for the ban...

And I answered your off topic question via PM..

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by neo96

 

Yah...So Reagan pressed for the ban...

And I answered your off topic question via PM..

edit on 4-2-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

Someone made the question the topic don't know why the U2 for that.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Reagan signed his name as did others who all knew the futility of the legislation.

Btw if that is all of your :"arsenal" outgunned comes to mind some people are fine outsourcing their personal security to the police and government others are not.

Even those presidents outsource theirs to people with guns most people do not have that luxury.

Reagan's involvement in the '94 ban is something that I've never heard before. Even though I haven't specifically checked it, I have no problems believing he probably did. I have looked into some of Reagan's actions as governor of California and he was no real friend to the 2nd Amendment.

That is probably the main reason I say don't trust the GOP or the NRA to hold the line on the Second Amendment. They both caved in '94 and will again if politically expedient. That doesn't mean don't support them on their efforts to stall or thwart new/renewed laws, but don't take their support for your beliefs at face value. And they should know that any continued support is conditional on continued success in fighting the far-left democrats and oligarchs like Bloomby.

And to be honest, there are just as many Republicans as Democrats that deserve to one day face the People's justice for the things they did the first part of this past decade as the Democrats have done the second.

I just can't believe that the taxpayers are footing the bill for this ongoing campaign trip. When will it end?? They've converted his official campaign org. into a new foot soldier PAC for the advancement of Obama's agenda and he can't stop travelling to spread his lies.... Perhaps a video conference and rehash of everything he has said to date would be much cheaper ..... That's all folks...

The people have made up their minds on the topic. The people of Sandyhook now want armed protection in their schools... This legislation does not address the criminal element at all blah blah...

It is just about citizen control and nothing to do with guns... Just like Obamacare was supposed to solve a dire contrived healthcare crisis.... Neither effort will solve anything unless they can address the root problems FIRST!!

Originally posted by neo96

Reagan signed his name as did others who all knew the futility of the legislation.

He did more than sign a form letter...

”Dear Scott: As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms, I, too, have carefully thought about this issue. I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary,” Reagan wrote Klug. “I know there is heavy pressure on you to go the other way, but I strongly urge you to join me in supporting this bill. It must be passed. Sincerely, Ronald Reagan.”

”I can think of no one who has been a stronger supporter of law and order and a stronger supporter of the Second Amendment,” Klug said in a statement regarding Reagan’s note announcing his support for the ban.

Another former Congressman, New Hampshire Democrat Dick Swett, also credited the former President with influencing his voting. Swett was unsure of how to vote on the ban, but made up his made after direct lobbying from Reagan.

www.outsidethebeltway.com...

Originally posted by neo96

Btw if that is all of your :"arsenal" outgunned comes to mind

I have no need of an "arsenal" in civilian life. What I have meets my needs. In civilian life, by the time you "need" a gun, you have already done a dozen things wrong. Not sure someone who attaches emotion to thier guns would understand.

reply to post by Indigo5


Yep he sure did more than sign a form letter he did something no president since has done they only thing Potus's have done since Reagan is tighten "restrictions".

McClure-Volkmer Act aka Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986

reply to post by neo96


strange link??????

Originally posted by neo96

McClure-Volkmer Act aka Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986

edit on 4-2-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Yah?...and???...Reagan needed the NRA's money...after that he pushed the Assault Weapons Ban...and got it.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by eXia7
And I'm sure if any patriotic Americans witnessed that speech, they promptly went to their local gun shop afterwards to place an order for a new firearm.

This is the conspiracy that no one mentions..

The Gun Manufacturers pay the NRA...

The NRA fear monger about the end of the 2nd Amendment, twist and spin the conversation and shout about how the President will take away all the guns.

And the Gun Manufacturers get a mamoth return on thier investment to the NRA with a huge uptick in panicked gun sales...buy now! before they are all gone!!!

Man, In havent gotten one letter or anything from the NRA. Folks are not out there buying weapons on the NRAs word. Even the gun grabbers know this. Trust me when I tell you this. The NRA represents as offical members a fraction of the gun owning americans.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by neo96

McClure-Volkmer Act aka Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986

edit on 4-2-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Yah?...and???...Reagan needed the NRA's money...after that he pushed the Assault Weapons Ban...and got it.

No Reagan banned/regulated machine guns since they are still around just cost thousands of dollars to own that put them out of reach of the common folk

That was not enough they had to make up a new name "Assault weapons".Clintons ASB.

Originally posted by Cynicaleye

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Cynicaleye

 

"the police are outgunned"

Ring a bell?

And the bell is fear mongering.

You're the one doing the fear mongering pal.

Hes right man. Telling americans that the cops are outgunned by the "gun nuts" IS fear mongering. Its outrageous.

infringed past participle, past tense of in·fringe (Verb) Verb
Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy"

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]

Every single gun laws on the books is an infringement THAT IS A FACT.'

It is also a fact of the over 9000 laws on the books infringing second amendment rights how many more are needed that the law agianst murder does not already cover?

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Yeah full letter:

While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.

We should know by now when they say "criminals" in a context like this that they sound like british military 1776. Anyone that owns one is a criminal. Anyone taking up arms under the 2nd is a criminal. Well just look at the HLS "memo" they put out during the first term.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Indigo5

 

So what about all the fear mongering by the potus, and the police today eh?

Ban all the bad things to make the children "safe",.

Oh never mind that doesn't fit in to the false narrative being spun by the White house.

You still don't get it do you? You are consuming Fox News et al and all the fear mongering and assuming it is reality.

One side is talking about better background checks and closing the gun show loophole...

The other is screaming Tyranny, Nazi's..."1776 will commence again!!!"...gotta love AJ...

This is always their fallback position and they have been on it for years. Really. Now they take a mass murder and that has nothing to do with background checks and play pin the tail on the donkey with it.

Think about it....whos really the sucker here?