Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama: I am coming after the guns and I will screen gun owners
Human Events ^ | 10/17/2012 | Neil W McCabe

Posted on 10/18/2012 6:58:27 AM PDT by IbJensen

Crowley cuts off Romney’s Fast and Furious remarks at Obama’s behest

In the Oct. 16 presidential debate between President Barack Obama and GOP challenger W. Mitt Romney, when the president dropped the pretense of being neutral on restricting gun rights with a key assist from moderator Candy Crowley, hostess of the CNN program “State of the Nation.”

After his policies were rebuked in the 1994 midterms, President William J. Clinton, blamed more than anything else his support for a national ban on so-called assault weapons. It must have been a calculated move for Obama to suggest he would bring back the ban that had expired.

The questioner asked the president what he had done to fulfill his 2008 promise to keep AK-47’s and so-called assault weapons out of the hands of criminals.

Americans support the Second Amendment, he said. Then, those concerned about gun rights waited for the “but.”

They did not have to wait long.

“But there have been too many instances during the course of my presidency, where I’ve had to comfort families who have lost somebody,” he said.

“We have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill,” he said.

“We’ve done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to enforcement,” he said. “What I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.”

Obama said it made sense to him that weapons designed for soldiers should not be in the hands of civilians.

Perhaps sensing the a coming retort, the president acknowledged his own city of Chicago, a city with some of the strictest gun laws in the country, is rife with gun violence. “Frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.”

Message: We are coming after the hand guns, too.

The president and his campaign have been quick to point out that in the last four years, the administration has not proposed new restrictions on gun rights. In the Oct. 16 debate, Obama crossed that line with not only a call for responsible gun ownership, but also with his support for screening Americans for their mental capacity to exercise their guns rights.

Like trying to get off the No-Fly List, Americans who find themselves on the No-Gun List, like veterans, who seek counseling, have no process to appeal or otherwise adjudicate their status–a status bestowed upon them with the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen and often without notice.

For his part, Romney got caught up in the law he signed in Massachusetts that banned so-called “assault weapons.” It is a position that Romney took with the cooperation of the National Rifle Association because it loosened other gun restrictions.

The former Bay State governor scored some serious points with he brought up the Fast and Furious scandal, unfortunately, the rogue moderator stepped in again to interrupt Romney and break up his rhetorical momentum.

“The – the greatest failure we’ve had with regards to – to gun violence in some respects is what – what is known as Fast and Furious. Which was a program under this administration, and how it worked exactly I think we don’t know precisely, where thousands of automatic, and AK-47 type weapons were – were given to people that ultimately gave them to – to drug lords,” Romney said.

“They used those weapons against – against their own citizens and killed Americans with them. And this was a – this was a program of the government,” he said. “I’d like to understand who it was that did this, what the idea was behind it, why it led to the violence, thousands of guns going to Mexican drug lords.”

The president used one of his lifelines: “Candy?”

The immoderate moderator interceded: ”Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons that once were once banned and are no longer banned.” There could be no discussion of the Justice Department program that sent thousands of military-style long guns to Mexican crime organizations. Because? Because, no reason, because–and that was that.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2012; banglist; democrats; evilobamaregime; fastandfurious; getbozoout; guncontrol; liardamnedliar; obama; obamatruthfile; youwillnotdisarmus
Who failed to screen this White Hut wanker?

Crime has increased in every country that banned guns. Even more so because now they know that the people can not defend themselves. I say, keep your guns and get rid of this government, that is a good start.

1 posted on 10/18/2012 6:58:31 AM PDT by IbJensen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

“... keep your guns and get rid of this government...”

Excellent advice. And, we know who failed to screen this turd.


2 posted on 10/18/2012 7:03:04 AM PDT by izzatzo (Just beat Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
“But there have been too many instances during the course of my presidency, where I’ve had to comfort families who have lost somebody,” he said.

His version of "comfort" is to have his flunkys mail a note with an auto-scribed autograph to grieving family members and then to jet off to Las Vegas, Hawaii, or Martha's Vineyard.

3 posted on 10/18/2012 7:04:39 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
“But there have been too many instances during the course of my presidency, where I’ve had to comfort families who have lost somebody,” he said.

His version of "comfort" is to have his flunkys mail a note with an auto-scribed autograph to grieving family members and then to jet off to Las Vegas, Hawaii, or Martha's Vineyard.

4 posted on 10/18/2012 7:04:48 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

I don’t think Obama is all that serious about handgun enforcement for those in the shadow culture. I think he and Holder think it only fair that “their people” are armed and ready for redistribution.

So, if he can, Obama would shut down new gun production. But, criminals using guns in crimes would continue to have modest sentences.

If we went to a Singapore solution for true gun crime violence, coupled with a liberal interpretation of self-defense and the Castle Doctrine, the problem would take care of itself.

By “Singapore solution”, I mean Draconian punishment for gangbangers using firearms, or for that matter, unprovoked attacks by mobs or those employing great disparity of force.


5 posted on 10/18/2012 7:06:25 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

would someone please tell me where in the constitution, particularly the second amendment, where it says anything about background checks, criminal record or mental health condition????????


6 posted on 10/18/2012 7:07:43 AM PDT by joe fonebone (The clueless... they walk among us, and they vote...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Candy cut off debate (at Obama’s request) on Fast and Furious. F&F is fair game for the foreign policy debate since Mexico was the major victim of F&F, although we know what the ultimate goal was re: taking guns away from Americans. Romney needs to “hit it” in the next debate. BTW, I have a cousin who is a foreign policy expert (worked in the Reagan admin). You could google his name & get lots of info. - well-respected, books, etc. He attended an event with Romney a couple of years ago and said Romney talked, for two hours, without notes on foreign policy. My cousin was extremely impressed and told Romney that he reminded him of Ronald Reagan. Romney should do just fine on foreign policy, if he can keep Schieffer from sabotaging him. Bob S. is a nasty piece of work.


7 posted on 10/18/2012 7:11:45 AM PDT by MissMagnolia (Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't. (M.Thatcher))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Who failed to screen this White Hut wanker?

Good comeback.

He cut the screen and snuck in the back.

8 posted on 10/18/2012 7:19:04 AM PDT by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

>>I don’t think Obama is all that serious about handgun >>enforcement for those in the shadow culture. I think he >>and Holder think it only fair that “their people” are >>armed and ready for redistribution.

This is exactly it. In addition, they want those of us being redistributed from to not be able to fight back. We’re supposed to stand there and take it passively.

NOT gonna happen.


9 posted on 10/18/2012 7:21:09 AM PDT by LizardQueen (The world is not out to get you, except in the sense that the world is out to get everyone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

“But there have been too many instances during the course of my presidency, where I’ve had to comfort families who have lost somebody,”

He’s talking about Trayvon again...


10 posted on 10/18/2012 7:21:14 AM PDT by RedEyeJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
"Obama said it made sense to him that weapons designed for soldiers should not be in the hands of civilians."

Sorry Obummer, the first soldiers of this country, including 7 of my ancestors at Bunker Hill, were civilians using modern weapons of soldiers of that time, you idiot SOB!

11 posted on 10/18/2012 7:37:44 AM PDT by bunkerhill7 (yup-Who knew??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

That`s what King George III said- Look what happened to him. They tried to disarm all the citizens of Boston, but didn`t succeeed. They tried to take away our ammo too-They tried to seize the ammo dump before Lexington and Concord and look what happened to them.


12 posted on 10/18/2012 7:41:54 AM PDT by bunkerhill7 (yup-Who knew??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

That`s what King George III said- Look what happened to him. They tried to disarm all the citizens of Boston, but didn`t succeeed. They tried to take away our ammo too-They tried to seize the ammo dump before Lexington and Concord and look what happened to them.


13 posted on 10/18/2012 7:42:43 AM PDT by bunkerhill7 (yup-Who knew??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
In the Oct. 16 presidential debate between President Barack Obama and GOP challenger W. Mitt Romney, when the president dropped the pretense of being neutral on restricting gun rights with a key assist from moderator Candy Crowley, hostess of the CNN program “State of the Nation.”

Jeez. Do they have editors at Human Events?

An eight grader could tell that is not a sentence.

14 posted on 10/18/2012 7:44:49 AM PDT by Kinder Gentler Machinegun Hand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone

Not all rights are of the “inalienable” type. Those are specifed as “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness”. From these un/inalienable rights comes the mechanisms to exercise those principles of society and government, namely, to keep and bear arms (obvious to anyone who hold that one’s life is the most important aspect of all), and speech/press (libnerty is at issue here- w/o a voice, one cannot obtain and keep liberty, apply the former comment also,arms), and right to security in one’s person, papers and home. Pursuit of life liberty and happiness is not unlimited- ones pursuit of such (property, money, things etc) are all limited by society and law so as not to intrude/usurp the same from others).

The necessary and proper clasue of the constittuion is the basis for regulating all of the essentail rights- would anyone argue (seriously anyway) the fact taht arms are prohibited in court (except by court officers)?

We need to read, reread and study the DOI, the US COnstitution and BOR/Amendment and as importantly Locke’s “Second treatise on government” and Adam Smiths “Wealth of Nations” (not just about economics) along with a few other founders references for the ideals and intentions of the formation of this nation and our government.

Certainly incompetents and unable persons should not be armed at will, nor allowed to operate vehciles/fly airplanes etc. We owe it to ourselves and others to work in “society” and where we cannot, laws must be employed.

I will be glad to agree that felons once released and off parole/probation etc should be re-enfranchised, or never let go if they are not capable of walking civilly among us.

This said, be it known I exercise al lof my rights as often as I can w/o violating society or law, but life, liberty and pursuit of happiness trump, as they should.

Best;


15 posted on 10/18/2012 7:59:13 AM PDT by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret), "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War" (my spelling is generally correct!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Try not to sell them to Mexican drug dealers, Barry.


16 posted on 10/18/2012 8:01:13 AM PDT by popdonnelly (The first priority is get Obama out of the White House.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
My only point of confusion is that he telegraphed this move this far ahead of the election. Obviously, this will more fully energize gun owners to get their neighbors out to vote. Is it because he simply screed up and told us what he really thinks, or was is a conscious move made necessary by the lack of enthusiasm of his base?
17 posted on 10/18/2012 8:07:15 AM PDT by Pecos (Double tap: the only acceptable gun control)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Great; gun and ammo sales will rise even higher!


18 posted on 10/18/2012 8:07:31 AM PDT by Spirit of Liberty (If you build it, Obama wants credit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior

arms were allowed in courts until about the 1920’s...

so yes, I would argue that I am allowed to carry firearms into a courthouse, or a schoolhouse, or into and onto any federal, state, county or municipal building.

The only exception would be on private property and businesses, properly posted.

I will also argue that the second amendment is not there to allow hunting. It is there so that the citizenry can be fully prepared to throw off a government gone rogue, therefore any weapon the military possesses, private citizens should be able to possess. Without exceptions, and if you could afford it.

did you know, that during the revolutionary war, the fledgling United States leased warships and cannon from private owners?

No restrictions....


19 posted on 10/18/2012 8:15:24 AM PDT by joe fonebone (The clueless... they walk among us, and they vote...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

bkmk


20 posted on 10/18/2012 8:35:38 AM PDT by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone

http://clinpsyc.blogspot.com/2009/01/were-all-mentally-disordered-college.html

Mental Health screenings would disqualify at least 50% of college age America, and the methodology for diagnosing them, is crap.

“A study in the December 2008 issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry concluded that almost half of college aged Americans suffered from a DSM-IV disorder over a one-year timeframe. Yes, I am behind the curve on this one — Furious Seasons was all over this last month (1, 2). Rather than rant about the very odd idea that half of young adults are suffering from a mental disorder, I want to start by mentioning one aspect of the study — perhaps the most important one. Let’s look at how the diagnoses were assigned. To quote from the study:

All of the diagnoses were made according to DSM-IV criteria using the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule–DSM-IV version, a valid and reliable fully structured diagnostic interview designed for use by professional interviewers who are not clinicians.”


21 posted on 10/18/2012 8:41:49 AM PDT by To-Whose-Benefit? (It is Error alone which needs the support of Government. The Truth can stand by itself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pecos; All
Is it because he simply screed up and told us what he really thinks, or was is a conscious move made necessary by the lack of enthusiasm of his base?

I watched it. It was clear to me that he screwed up and let a hint of his real thoughts through. There is no "base" for gun control, in any sense of numbers. Even among Democrat voters, there are far more that support the Second Amendment than denigrate it. You even see this on Democrat Underground.

22 posted on 10/18/2012 8:56:05 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone

Any contact at all, 2nd Amendment Rights, Gone.

Here’s a few of their excuses.

2 Beers? Gone, permanently, Officially insane.
303.00 Alcohol Intoxication
http://behavenet.com/alcohol-intoxication

Smoke cigarettes? Gone, permanently, Officially insane.
305.10 Nicotine Dependence
http://behavenet.com/nicotine

Quit smoking? Gone, permanently, Officially insane.
292.0 Nicotine Withdrawal
http://behavenet.com/nicotine-withdrawal

Have a peek through the psychiatric book.
You’ll notice that a lot of their diseases are temporary intoxications.
And for All of them, Gone, permanently, Officially insane.
http://behavenet.com/dsm-iv-tr-numerical-listing-codes-and-diagnoses

How about this one for science?
292.9 Nicotine-Related Disorder NOS
http://behavenet.com/not-otherwise-specified

374 psychiatric excuses aren’t enough, so they write them up as insane due to Not Otherwise Specified.


23 posted on 10/18/2012 9:19:44 AM PDT by To-Whose-Benefit? (It is Error alone which needs the support of Government. The Truth can stand by itself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: To-Whose-Benefit?

Anyone who can’t see the need for “reasonable” gun control has to be crazy, so why bother with formalized evaluations? Sorry Comrade, your application to own a gun has been denied. Proceed to Camp No. 327 for reeducation, you should not even desire to own dangerous weapons. What is wrong with you? If you want to play army, then join the army.


24 posted on 10/18/2012 9:31:59 AM PDT by TexasRepublic (Socialism is the gospel of envy and the religion of thieves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RedEyeJack
“But there have been too many instances during the course of my presidency, where I’ve had to comfort families who have lost somebody,”

Not true, at Ft Hood he gave a shout-out. So uncalled for I can't describe it.
25 posted on 10/18/2012 9:40:14 AM PDT by freebird5850 (Guilty but not prosecuted? Sounds like a liberal to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TexasRepublic

But of course. And they have treatments which will make those crazy people happy and mentally healthy.

http://ssristories.com/

http://psychrights.org/research/Digest/NLPs/Lehmannneuroleptics-suicide2012.pdf

http://jannel.se/suicide.psychiatricdrugs.pdf

http://www.ect.org/resources/machines.html

Just trust in the system and all will be well. And that’s because they’re experts who own the keys to the secret knowledge.

http://home.earthlink.net/~thetabus/eugenics/eutt-6.htm

1939 An interview with psychiatrist Carl Jung is published in Hearst’s International- Cosmopolitan. In it, he calls Mussolini a man of style and good taste who was “warm and human.” About Hitler, he says, “There is no question but that Hitler belongs in the category of the truly mystic medicine man. As somebody commented about him at the last Nuremberg party congress, since the time of Mohammed nothing like it has been seen in this world. This markedly mystic characteristic of Hitler’s is what makes him do things which seem to us illogical, inexplicable, curious and unreasonable...So you see, Hitler is a medicine man, a form of a spiritual vessel, a demi-deity or, even better, a myth.”


26 posted on 10/18/2012 10:08:28 AM PDT by To-Whose-Benefit? (It is Error alone which needs the support of Government. The Truth can stand by itself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Pecos

He can only go to his hardcore base now. Everyone else it seems is deserting him. He doesn’t care about any gun owner vote now.


27 posted on 10/19/2012 1:45:17 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Ping


28 posted on 12/06/2012 12:13:33 PM PST by MercedesB (no comment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Stop by any time Obama. Come alone.


29 posted on 12/06/2012 12:15:32 PM PST by bmwcyle (Women reelected Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson