do I really have to say it???
Posted on 07/26/2012 3:57:11 PM PDT by Kaslin
It was just last week when White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stood in front of America and said President Obama would only work to curtail violent crime with "existing" gun laws. This was a response to reporters asking whether the President would pursue new gun control measures after a mad man killed 12 and wounded 58 people sitting unarmed in a gun-free zone theater.
The shooting has thrust the issue of gun control into the national spotlight with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg calling on both presidential candidates to better enforce gun laws on the books and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) calling for a renewal of the assault weapons ban.
In a gaggle aboard Air Force One, en route to Colorado Carney struck a cautious tone, saying the president “believes we need to take steps that protect Second Amendment rights of the American people but that ensure that we are not allowing weapons into the hands of individuals who should not, by existing law, obtain those weapons," according to a White House transcript.
But now, President Obama seems to be taking a different tone. From the Washington Times:
“A lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,” Mr. Obama said at the annual National Urban League convention in New Orleans. “They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.”
“Every day, the number of young people we lose to violence is about the same as the number of people we lost in that movie theater,” Mr. Obama said. “For every Columbine or Virginia Tech, there are dozens gunned down on the streets of Chicago or Atlanta, here in New Orleans.
“We’ve been able to take some actions on our own, recognizing that it’s not always easy to get things through Congress these days,” Mr. Obama said. “The background checks on those looking to purchase firearms are now more thorough and more complete. Instead of just throwing more money at the problem of violence, the federal government is now in the trenches with communities and schools and law enforcement … we’re partnering with local officials to reduce crime using best practices.”
From Reuters:
"We recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation, that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage," Obama said.
First of all, alleged Colorado theater killer James Holmes wasn't using an AK-47. Second, the U.S. military does not use AK-47s either, so I'm not exactly sure which soldiers President Obama was referring to. Third, all law abiding gun owners believe AK-47s shouldn't be in the hands of criminals. Fourth, Obama mentioned Columbine and Virginia Tech, both gun-free campuses where students were left as sitting ducks before they were mowed down. Fifth, the Second Amendment isn't about the American hunting and shooting heritage, it's about the people protecting themselves from the government. Sixth, Obama spoke of pushing gun control without the help of that pesky thing called Congress. On this point he is correct. Last summer the Department of Justice, the same department responsible for funneling 2500 AK-47s and .50 caliber rifles to the Mexican drug cartels (criminals) through Operation Fast and Furious, pushed through a new long gun reporting measure for Southwest border gun dealers in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
Deputy Attorney General James Cole issued the following statement today regarding information requests for multiple sales of semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines in select states along the Southwest Border:
“The international expansion and increased violence of transnational criminal networks pose a significant threat to the United States. Federal, state and foreign law enforcement agencies have determined that certain types of semi-automatic rifles – greater than .22 caliber and with the ability to accept a detachable magazine – are highly sought after by dangerous drug trafficking organizations and frequently recovered at violent crime scenes near the Southwest Border. This new reporting measure -- tailored to focus only on multiple sales of these types of rifles to the same person within a five-day period -- will improve the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to detect and disrupt the illegal weapons trafficking networks responsible for diverting firearms from lawful commerce to criminals and criminal organizations. These targeted information requests will occur in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas to help confront the problem of illegal gun trafficking into Mexico and along the Southwest Border.”
If President Obama is serious about reducing "gun" violence, he would embrace concealed carry. Concealed carry has been passed in some form in 49 states, the only state without concealed carry is Illinois where of course seven were killed and 38 were wounded just last weekend in its violence capitol of Chicago (secret: Chicago has very strict gun laws). Not to mention, more people have been killed in Chicago in the past year than in Afghanistan. Ironically, Obama used Chicago as an example of a "gun" violence hot spot during his remarks. Washington D.C. another city with high "gun" crime, also has strict gun laws. The states with concealed carry have seen their crime rates drop.
Nobody wants to see guns in the hands of criminals or the mentally ill. For President Obama to imply those who don't want more restrictions on the right to bear arms do is laughable.
Actually, this practice violates the federal models. There is no role for the federal government in funding, leading, driving, or otherwise directing municipal government.
Municipalities are subdivisions of the State, and the State is supreme within its sphere. This practice of using federal tax grants to "buy in" to local policymaking and policy execution is actually a total violation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Lyndon Johnson was the principal offender here. He began using the U.S. Treasury the way that liberal foundation board members had been using targeted, renewable, conditional, marginal grants of foundation money to get the attention, and then the obedience, of local politicians under the noses of their (unacceptably conservative/whatever) States.
It is actually subornation, and ultra vires the federal government.
I can’t find anything on it
Two people who espouse gun control right down the line:
Hillary Clinton
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm
“[Global Weapons Ban] Drop Your Weapon: Hillary Clinton Jumpstarts UN Arms Ban, Treaty Back On Track “
May 20, 2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzPohbDAu00
Obama
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
“FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban
Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”
“Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:
35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
Obama’s campaign said, “Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires—a staffer did—and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn’t reflect his views.”
Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Philadelphia primary debate Apr 16, 2008
do I really have to say it???
Just what kind of soldiers is he referring to? Our military doesn't use these, only his muslim brothers do!
And of course Communists, terrorists, tyrants and drug lords worldwide.
Isn't it interesting how President Obama thinks it is better for AK-47s to be in the hands of the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, the NVA, the Somalians, Hezbollah, Hamas, and assorted other groups all of whom have or are using them to try to kill Americans, than in the hands of criminals, who in large part just use their AK-47s to fight each other.
The only gun control we need involves more range time.
He is that arrogant, but what scares me is he really isn't THAT stupid - maybe he "knows" something about this upcoming election, like maybe it doesn't happen at all.
He is pulling out all of the loony-lefty stops, and doesn't seem to care if it drives his poll numbers down.....
What would you do if you woke up one morning and turned on the news and heard that the President signed a UN treaty outlawing the private ownership of firearms in the United States. What would you do if you had a brother,sister or father or grandfather that was an avid gun owner and the UN or local police took them away for the fact that they owned fire arms and refused to give them up? Well when you wake up tomorrow morning the 27th of July 2012 The President will have most likely signed that treaty. And we are one step closer to being a dictatorship.
Let us all not forget history. Germany first act of Adolph Hitler ban gun ownership, 6 millions jews killed, 50 million people killed in WW2. Stalin no one was armed in the Soviet Union, 20 million Ukrainians dead. Mao 100 million Chinese killed. Ect ect. (Those that forget the Past are bound to repeat it). Molon Labe (come and take it)!
Ayers postulated that a significant portion of the U.S. population would have to be offed for his socialist utopia to take root. Can’t remember if it was 25,000,000 or 25%. Either way, a boatload or two. Consider that most of his targeted population probably have some riflecraft background and equipment on hand, the final number might be a bit higher.
No mention that the greatest supplier of these weapons is our own DOJ ala Fast & Furious.
I would love to get my hands on an AK47. You cannot wreck one of those.
Only if Romney is smart enough to choose the right side of this. If he starts mumbling about compromise he is toast.
From the Tea Party, it says that the Senate does NOT have to ratify this treaty: http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/the-senate-does-not-need-to-ratify-a-un-treaty-for-us-to-be-bound?xg_source=activity
The U.N. Arms Transfer Treaty (ATT): “The United Nations is polishing up a global Arms Transfer Treaty (ATT) this month in a New York convention that would create a global registry of private ownership of firearms. This treaty — which would also mandate creation of a national collection agency for those guns and is contrary to the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment — has the long-standing and enthusiastic backing of the Obama State Department, headed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2907298/posts
Obama will sign Small Arms Treaty: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2903144/posts
I do not understand how this can be thrust on Americans without the approval of the Senate. It will essentially cancel the 2nd amendment.
They weren't just buying "shotguns".
They were buying a particular model "for compatibility with existing inventory".
Well, I have known for forty years since being saved that the Lord did not predict things to get better, and that this is currently the realm of the god of this world. But are we merely to sit on our fannies and wait for His parousia, or are we to show forth his death til He come, and contend for the faith, praying for our leaders, and making a difference where we can? with a possible commendation at the Judgment Seat of Christ?
What will you do?
Respectfully
I agree, we must all pray and do our best.
My caution was against expecting God to intercede, dismiss the rascals, and restore America.
This was the expectation of the Jews, in the 1st century.
I'm here and authorized as an ambassador to offer citizenship in a new country.
My caution was against expecting God to intercede, dismiss the rascals, and restore America.
The God was present, in person, and offered the Jews a new Kingdom with a new Kingdom through His plenipotentiary, John Baptist -- until the Jews' ruler Herod had him killed. From then on, Jesus only preached the Kingdom of The God -- the offer of His Kingdom on the earth was over, for a long time.
This was the expectation of the Jews, in the 1st century.
They had the offer, and muffed it. They also muffed The God's only other offer -- that of the Romans, just as badly. Today, July 28, 2012, is the anniversary of Tisha b'Av on the Jewish calendar, when the Temple was destroyed and the Jews were dispersed.
Someday the streets of the USA will be a battlefield of patriots vs tyrants, so yeah we need ‘em.
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.