Obama To Put His "Full Weight" Behind New Gun Legislation...

I am not just talking about confiscation.

There are worse things that can and are being done.

Creating paranoia among people who are already afraid and misinformed about guns and legal responsible gun owners.

Making people think they are crazy or dangerous, creating some kind if vigilante justice to run rampant among anti gun people. "Look over there!!!! A scary gun owner!!!"

Here in NY we have the newspaper running names and addresses of legal law abiding gun owners. This is how it starts, an old trick of the nazi party and many others.


www.huffingtonpost.com...

Article with names and maps of where they all live......is this really America....."if you see something say something", TSA feel ups, reading of e mails with no warrant, NDAA.....then disarm the paranoid public while creating a frenzy of violence against the pro gun crowd?

We are in trouble......

reply to post by YouAreLiedTo


It isn't about revenue, it is all about control and power.

Isn't like any of them care one bit about anyone else except themselves and their buddies.

This issue is so sickening it's ridiculous. They've been waiting for a tragedy like this in order to get rid of guns. The question is why? If you look up his record, Obama obviously doesn't care that much about people's safety. He has a long history of voting to protect criminals, so why is it he's so against guns? And why aren't they focusing on the real cause of this issue. These shootings didn't used to happen, even though we had the guns to do it. So why is it happening now? They don't care, they just want the guns.
Don't get me wrong, I am not against gun control, I am against what could happen because of gun control.

reply to post by karen61560


My comment was well within context. Obama shouldn't be putting his full weight behind this new gun legislation. Period.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


It will always be a copy unless you are holding the original in your hands silly. You only see whats online. Thats not an original copy in your hand.
Believe me when I say that if there was anything to your claim the republicans would have ousted this guy in a heart beat. They have not because they cant. He is an Ameircan citizen. Two terms now. Please let the horse rest in peace.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


It will always be a copy unless you are holding the original in your hands silly. You only see whats online. Thats not an original copy in your hand.
Believe me when I say that if there was anything to your claim the republicans would have ousted this guy in a heart beat. They have not because they cant. He is an Ameircan citizen. Two terms now. Please let the horse rest in peace.

I think the 16 million (and counting) NICS Background check requests made for the Month of December.....the 12+ month backlog on 'Black Guns' that developed just since the gun ban talk started...and the sold out gun stores and gun shows all combine to say very clearly where the public support is.

He hasn't got it. Better luck next issue is what I say ...although I'm sure he'll do his Presidential best to force it upon us with total disregard to all those above signs that show more than any opinion poll ever could.

Well, he's spent the past 4 years putting all his weight behind destroying virtually everything that made America America, why would this issue be any different? Hopefully one of these days he applies his full weight to the White House EXIT door and this cult of personality infatuation 51% of America has will finally end.

Originally posted by timetothink
Making people think they are crazy or dangerous, creating some kind if vigilante justice to run rampant among anti gun people. "Look over there!!!! A scary gun owner!!!"




We are in trouble......

I always find that mentality funny. When I tell people that I don't go to Buffalo Wild Wings because I respect their right to deny carrying on their premises, they will say, "Well you shouldn't need to carry it to eat anyways..."

But when my in-laws had to evict someone out of one of their properties, I was the second person they called to be there (right after the Sheriff )

reply to post by timetothink


We are in trouble is a major understatement.

This is just the start to this mess, it will get a lot worse. You see how they have already started their campaign that patriots are domestic terrorists, the increased police state with the TSA / Homeland Security, the increased surveillance of the public....now they see it as the time to disarm the public.

Well, will be interesting to see how far they will take this....will be interesting to see how people respond. Just take a look at the front page of Drudge. "There will be resistance"

www.drudgereport.com...

(but it is funny how the government gets to pick and choose who gets armed, Fast and Furious anyone?)

reply to post by karen61560


Think again:

Civilian Guns CompareNumber of Privately Owned Firearms The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,000

CompareRate of Civilian Firearm Possession per 100 Population The rate of private gun ownership in the United States is 88.82 firearms per 100 people

And to those who think we can't take on the corrupt government, we sure can put up a good fight.

CompareNumber of Military Firearms The defence forces of the United States are reported to have 3,054,553. firearms
CompareNumber of Law Enforcement Firearms Police in the United States are reported to have 897,400

www.gunpolicy.org...

edit on 30-12-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by karen61560

 

Think again:

Civilian Guns CompareNumber of Privately Owned Firearms The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,000

CompareRate of Civilian Firearm Possession per 100 Population The rate of private gun ownership in the United States is 88.82 firearms per 100 people

And to those who think we can't take on the corrupt government, we sure can put up a good fight.

Just had to reply:

It also doesn't matter the total number of guns the military has, they still need people to pull the trigger. No serviceman I have ever met, including myself, would ever pull the trigger on an American civilian.

I hate to say it, but there is a huge disconnect when you are in a foreign country. No one knows you. Everyone is different. You will (hopefully) never be back there. You are taught to be on constant alert, everyone is an enemy.

When it's in your own country, it hits a lot closer to home, to use a terrible saying..

Just from my personal experience anyways...

Although it won't happen, any legislation that the president or legislative body puts forward which may even possibly contradict a Constitutional Amendment should be evaluated by the Supreme Court before it passes to make sure it is considered in fact Constitutional. Just because he's president doesn't mean he can alter the Constitution on a whim. He is responsible for upholding the rights of the Constitution in his duties of office but unless he's passing an Executive Order all he can do is put pressure on Congress, Senate, etc to pass a law that he backs up.

What needs to happen is as soon as any law is passed, if someone doesn't agree, they challenge it in the court of law. Once it is challenged if my memory serves me right the justice system can't enforce it until it is vetted out.

If there are any actual Lawyers in the ATS Audience please chime in here.

I am not as trusting as you.

Between EOs and "bans", they will chip away.

Originally posted by HellstormRising
Although it won't happen, any legislation that the president or legislative body puts forward which may even possibly contradict a Constitutional Amendment should be evaluated by the Supreme Court before it passes to make sure it is considered in fact Constitutional. Just because he's president doesn't mean he can alter the Constitution on a whim. He is responsible for upholding the rights of the Constitution in his duties of office but unless he's passing an Executive Order all he can do is put pressure on Congress, Senate, etc to pass a law that he backs up.

What needs to happen is as soon as any law is passed, if someone doesn't agree, they challenge it in the court of law. Once it is challenged if my memory serves me right the justice system can't enforce it until it is vetted out.

If there are any actual Lawyers in the ATS Audience please chime in here.

They actually kind of chimed in on this:

Separately, a member of the president's cabinet said Sunday that rural America may be ready to join a national conversation about gun control. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the debate has to start with respect for the Second Amendment right to bear arms and recognition that hunting is a way of life for millions of Americans.

From the context I am taking from this, it means that they are ready to go after certain guns as long as we still have the ability to hunt.

I'm not sure why else they would single-out "rural America" and specifically reference hunting. Perhaps they are planning on going the UK route of long guns are ok if registered?

Not exactly sure how hunting rifles are regulated there, but I believe certain rifles and shotguns are legal for sporting purposes?

Any UK'ers here to please clarify?

No gun bill will ever pass the HOR. Relax kids, it's entirely political posturing.

A little peak into the mind of Feinstein and her gun bill coming soon.

“What we would do is take the earlier bill and strengthen it in many ways, prevent the gun manufacturers, from getting around it as they did,” she said. “Go to a one physical characteristic test, take specific models and ban their manufacture, their sale and their transfer, and take the weapons that are grandfathered, that are in possession now, and put them under the Federal Firearms Act so that they would be licensed, there would be background checks down.”

And Obama chimes in.

"I'm going to be putting forward a package and I'm going to be putting my full weight behind it," Obama said. "I'm going to be making an argument to the American people about why this is important and why we have to do everything we can to make sure that something like what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary does not happen again."

thehill.com...

PS: no way that scrawny wimp us 180lbs, maybe Michelle, not him.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
No gun bill will ever pass the HOR. Relax kids, it's entirely political posturing.

Any chance of an Executive Order banning high-cap mags and basically hitting 75% of handguns under the blanket?

Not exactly sure what Executive Orders can be issued on this, as they would not be banning the arms, but the capacity of the rounds held in the mags?

I forgot to add this, not sure if it is entirely true. We have to see when she lets it out, or maybe we have to pass it to see what's in it.

Breitbart News' AWR Hawkins points that the Feinstein Assault Weapon Bill is actually a handgun ban. [T]he details of the ban betray a gun grab that includes semi-automatic pistols that use "a detachable magazine" and have "one military characteristic."

This can only mean that the most popular handguns in the world for both civilian and military use are being targeted. These would include Glocks, Sig Sauers, Smith & Wesson M&Ps, H&K, and Colt, yet would by no means be limited to these handguns alone.

www.breitbart.com...

reply to post by YouAreLiedTo


Yes....it is what you fear.

See my above post.